Skip to main content

Full text of "The First Battle: A Story of the Campaign of 1896"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/| 





The First Battle 

The PiRST Battle,/ 

A Story of the Campaign of 1896 







Entered according to act of Congress, ia the year 1898, 

By William J. Brtan, 

In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C 

All Rxghts Rsservbd. 


DEC 3 01983 



CHIOAOa U. a. Ai 



THE object of 'The First Battle" is to present an account of the 
leading events and issues of the most critical campaign in 
American history. The work contains an interesting descrip- 
tion of the author's famous tour, including his most important 
speeches, together with the principal addresses and documents identi- 
fied with the campaign of 1896; the whole embodying a faithful pre- 
sentation of the rise and development of the silver movement. It also 
contains a review of the political situation and an analysis of the 
election returns. At our request the author has included a biographi- 
cal sketch written by Mrs. Dryan. 

The name and fame of the author may induce unscrupulous pub- 
hshers to issue fraudulent imitations of "The First Battle.'* We desire 
to state that this book will appear under no otlitr title than "The First 
Battle," copyrighted by \\'illiam J. Bryan and bearing the imprint 
of \V. B. Conkey Company. 







^'^~ ^A>CA ^ ^>^ 

/i^>iU^C^^ <PA*->U<t^U^ iSt:^^iM....c.w^^ /cl 

'^''^^T^^^^. J ^^Cju^ 





^w-^^'i^ '^C-^*^ >i 

^J^iAv /CL-^ 

jCu^^jt^ "A^. 

^ e^ 'iK-do-^. xl 




































Publishers' Preface 9 

Preface 1 1 

Index to Speeches, Addresses and Dociments 15 

List of Illustrations 19 

Introduction 23 

Biography 33 

My Connection with the Silver (2ucsiion Hcgins 71 

Unconditional Repeal 76 

Bolting Discussed 1 22 

Seigniorage, Currency and Geld Bonds 1 28 

Pioneer Work in Nebraska 149 

The Silver Sentiment Developing 153 

The Republican National Convention i^>8 

The Silver Republicans 1 78 

The Democratic National Convention 188 

Contest Over the Platform 197 

The Presidential Nomination 210 

Mr. Sewall's Nomination 221 

Homeward Bound 233 

The Silver Party Convention 238 

The Populist Convention 259 

The Triple Demand 280 

Three National Committees 287 

Preparing for the Campaign 296 

From Nebraska to the Sea 300 

At Madison Square Garden 307 

On the Hudson 339 

From Albany to Cleveland 351 

From Cleveland to Chicago 359 

At Milwaukee 3(/) 

Labor Day 375 

The Bolting Democrats 386 

Letters of Acceptance of Republican Candidates 392 

The Democratic Platform 406 

Nomination of Silver Party Accepted 426 

Populist Nomination Tendered and Accepted 430 

Mr. Sewairs Speech and Letter 43 1 

Third Trip Commences 44 ^ 

In the South 445 

From Washington to Wilmington 459 

Religion and Politics Mixed 469 





XXXVI. From Philadelphia to Brooklyn ; 476 

XXXVII. In New England 484 

XXXVIII. Tammany Hall and Vicinity 507 

XXXIX. Traveling Westward 512 

XL. Meeting of the Democratic Clubs 518 

XLI. To Chicago via Tennessee 525 

XLII. A Trip Through the Northwest 534 

XLIII. At Minneapolis and Duluth 538 

XLIV. Through the Two Peninsulas 555 

XL V, Among the Buckeyes and Hoosiers 566 

XLVL In the Sucker State 570 

XLVII. The Chicago Campaign 580 

XLVIII. From Lake Michigan to Nebraska 592 

XLIX. My Labors Ended 602 

L. The Election Returns 605 

LI. Reminiscences 612 

LII. Explanations 621 

LIIL The Future 625 




Against Gold Bonds, Speech 135 

Albany Speech 350 

Allen, Speech of Permanent Chairman 264 

Alliance Speech 305 

Appeal for Funds 291 

Asheville Speech 44q 

Baltimore Speech 462 

Bath Speech 503 

Behrends, Opinion of Rev. Mr 472 

Bimetallists, Address to 625 

Bismarck Letter 483 

Bloomington Speech 577 

Boston Spfeech At Banquet 4g3 

Boston Speech At Music Hall 4^4 

Brooklyn Speech 47q 

Buffalo Speech 353 

Butler, Speech of Temporary Chairman 259 

Caffery, Speech of Permanent Chairman 387 

Canton Speech 305 

Carlisle's Speech in 1878 164 

Carlisle, M^essage of Mr 388 

Carpenters* International Union, Resolutions of 5go 

Chicago Speech To Business Men 582 

Chicago Speech — First Reception 303 

Chicago Speech — Second Reception 580 

Cincinnati Speech 517 

Clarksburg Speech 512 

Cleveland's Letter on Sound Money 1 58 

Cleveland, Message of Mr 388 

Cleveland, Last Message of President 421 

Committees, Three National 287 

Counting a Quorum 57 

Daniel, Speech cf Temporary Chairman i8g 

Debate on Chicago Platform, Speech Concluding igg 

Democratic Platform 406 

Democartic Nomination, Letter Accepting 409 

Des Moines Speech 301 

Detroit Speech 562 

Dixon, Opinion of Rev. Mr 473 

Dover Speech 465 

Elkhart Speech 362 


16 INDEX. 


Enemies Country 300 

Erie Speech 352 

Flower, Speech of Temporary Chairman 386 

Fredericksburg Speech 457 

Flint Speech 562 

Goldsboro Speech 455 

Graduating Oration 40 

Grand Rapids Speech To the Ladies 555 

Groot, Notification Speech of Mr 426 

Hartford Speech 488 

Hobart, Letter of Acceptance of Mr 398 

Homellsville Speech 354 

Howard, Nominating Speech of Mr , 270 

Important Document, Autograph Signatures 156 

Indianapolis Speech At the Capitol 526 

Indianapolis Speech To the Traveling Men 532 

International Bimetallism Speech 147 

Interview Regarding Vice-Presidential Nomination 297 

Ireland, Opinion of Archbishop 472 

Jacksonville Speech 573 

Jefferson City Speech 236 

Jury System, The 55 . 

Kansas City Speech 442 

Labor Petition 166 

Labor Day Speech at Chicago 375 

La Salic Speech 571 

Law and the Gospel, The 48 

Lewis, Nominating Speech of Mr 213 

Lexington Speech ^ 448 

Lincoln Speech 237 

Little, Nominating Speech of Mr 254 

Lima Speech 566 

Louisville Speech 445 

Louisville Courier- Journal, Opinion of 492 

McArthur, Opinion of Dr 471 

McKinley, Letter of Acceptance of Mr 392 

Madison Speech 593 

Madison Square Garden Speech 315 

Madalin Speech 342 

Manchester Speech 503 

Marshall Speech 561 

Memorial Day Address, Arlington Cemetery 64 

Mileage on First Trip 237 

Mileage on Second Trip 383 

Mileage on Third Trip 597 

Mileage on Fourth Trip 604 

Minority Report, Gold Bonds 131 

Minneapolis Speech At Exposition Building 538 

Minneapolis Speech To the Ladies 547 

INDEX, 17 


Minority Report, Democratic Platform, 1896 198 

Milwatdcee Speech 366 

Money Plank, Nebraska Convention, 1894 1 50 

Money Plank Republican Platform, 1896 169 

Monmouth Speech 572 

Morristown Speech 479 

Myers, Opinion of Rev. Mr 473 

New York World, Opinion of 474 

New York Tribune, Opinion of 492 

Newark Speech 507 

Newlands, Speech of Temporary Chairman 238 

Newton Speech 301 

Notification, Letter of 313 

Nomination of Silver Party, Speech Accepting 427 

Open Letter to President Cleveland 160 

Ottumwa Speech 594 

Paterson Speech 507 

Parkhurst, Opinion of Dr 471 

Peoria Speech 570 

People Can be Trusted 344 

People's Party Platform 271 

Vote of 1896 610 

Pittsburg Speech 306 

Philosophy of Bolting, The 124 

Philadelphia Speech 476 

Platform of Bolting Democrats 387 

Populist Notification 430 

Populist Nomination, Letter Accepting 432 

Populist Committee, Address Issued by 293 

Vote of 1892 606 

Presentation of Gray's Elegy 50 

Presidential Nomination, Official Ballots 214 

Raleigh Speech 452 

Rhinebeck Speech 340 

Ripley Speech 357 

Rothschild-Morgan Contract 134 

Salem Speech 233 

Senatorial Defeat, Letter to Friends 59 

Sewall, Accepting Nomination, Letter of Mr 437 

Sewall, Accepting Nomination, Speech of Mr 434 

Sewall, Biographical Sketch of Mr 229 

Sewall, Letter from Mr 298 

Sewall, Official Ballot, Nomini*tion of Mr 223 

Sewall, Speech of Mr. Burk, Nominating Mr 221 

Sherman's Letter, Mr., 1878 165 

Silver Party Platform 252 

Silver Plank for Chicago Convention, Suggestion for 177 

Silver Republicans, Address of 1 78 

Silver Republicans Declare for Democratic Ticket 182 

18 INDEX. 


Springfield, Ohio, Speech 360 

Springfield, Mass., Speech 489 

St. John, Speech of Permanent Chairman 248 

St. Louis Speech 518 

St. Paul Speech 536 

Stone, Notification Speech of Mr 307 

Talmage, Opinion of Dr : 474 

Tammany Hall Speech 509 

Teller's Farewell Address, Senator 170 

Unconditional Repeal, Final Protest 120 

Unconditional Repeal, First Speech 76 

Unconditional Repeal, Principal Speech 77 

Unconditional Repeal, Third Speech 114 

Vote on Adoption, of Platform 207 

Washington Speech 459 

Weaver, Nominating Speech of Mr 276 

Wheeling Speech 1 514 

White, Speech of Permanent Chairman 126 

Wilmington Speech 469 

Yale College Incident 484 

List of Illustrations 


W. J. Bryan, ..... Frontispiece 

Dedicatory Page, - - - - - - 21 

Mary Baird Bryan, - - - - - - 31 

Ruth Baird Bryan, - - - - - - 41 

William Jennings Bkyan, Jr., - - - - 51 

Grace Dexter Bryan, - - - - - 61 

Library, ------- 67 

Silas L. Bryan, ------.73 

Mariah Elizabeth Bryan, - - - - 91 

Group of Mr. Bryan, - - - - - - loi 

Bryan Farm Residence, near Salem, Illinois, - - in 

Bryan Residence, Jacksonville, Illinois, - - - 112 

Bryan Residence, Lincoln, Nebraska, - - - 129 

Lyman Trumbull, - - - - - - 130 

Arthur Sewall, - - - - - - 139 

William McKinley, - - - - - - 173 

Garret A. Hobart, - - - - - 183 

Adlai E. Stevenson, - - - - - - 201 

John W. Daniel, - - - - - - 211 

Stephen M. White, --..-- 245 

Joseph C. S. Blackburn, .... - 255 

Horace Boies, ------- 256 

J. R McLean, ---..- 273 

Claude Matthews, ----.. 274 

Robert E. Pattison, . . . , . 283 

Benjamin R. Tillman, ------ 284 




John P. Altgeld, - - - - - - 317 

Joseph C. Sibley, - - - - - - 318 

James K. Jones, - . - - - - - 327 

W. J. Stone, ------- 328 

Francis G. Newlands, - - - - - 345 

William P. St. John, ------ 346 

Charles A. Towne, - - - . _ jg^ 

C. D. Lane, ------- 364 

George A. Groot, - - - - - - 381 

Marion Butler, ------- 382 

Map of First and Second Trip, - - - - 384 

William V. Allen, ------ 3^9 

S. F. Norton, ------ ^oo 

Ignatius Donnelly, - - - - - -417 

William H. Harvey, . - - - _ 418 

A. J. Warner, ------- 435 

John P. Jones, ------ 436 

William M. Stewart, ------ 453 

Snap Shot and Crowd at Wellsville, Ohio, - - 454 

Study in Hats, ------- 495 

Rochester Meeting, ----- ^gg 

Writing Set, ------- 529 

Convention Hall, ------ 530 

Map of Third and Fourth Trip, - - - - 600 

Election of 1892, ------ 607 

Election of 1896, - - - - - - 611 



HON. RICHARD P. BLAND of Missouri, Gen. James B. 
Weaver of Iowa, and Hon. Henry M. Teller of Colorado, may, 
without injustice to others, be considered the foremost cham- 
pions of bimetallism in their respective parties. 

Mr* Blandt Democrat 

Mr. Bland was first elected to the National House of Representa- 
tives in 1872, and served for twenty-two years. In the Forty-fourth 
Congress, as Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Mining, he 
secured the passage through the House of a bill providing for the free 
and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the ratio of 16 to i. 
During the same Congress he was appointed a member of the com- 
mission which prepared the "Silver Commission Report." In the 
Forty-fifth Congress he introduced and secured the passage through 
the House of a bill similar to the one advocated in the preceding 
Congress, but the bill was amended in the Senate and was 
afterwards known as the Bland-Allison act, becoming a law over 
the President's veto. Some three hundred and eighty millions of 
standard silver dollars were coined under this act. Mr. Bland, during 
Mr. Cleveland's first adniinistration, opposed the suspension of the 
Bland-Allison act and also endeavored to secure the passage of a free 
coinage bill. In the Fifty-first Congress he joined with the silver 
men in the Senate in an effort to secure a free coinage 
measure instead of the act of 1890, known as the Sherman act. 
In the Fifty-third Congress he led the fight against unconditional re- 
peal and against the retirement of the greenbacks and Treasury notes 
with an issue of gold bonds. He was one of the Democrats who 
joined in the address, issued March 4, 1895, calling upon the silver 
Democrats to organize and take control of the Democratic party, and 
was largely instrumental also in securing a strong declaration in favor 
of free coinage at 16 to i in the Missouri State Convention, held at 



Pirtle Springs in 1895. In the Chicago Convention he received the 
second largest number of votes for the Presidential nomination, ami 
during the campaign which followed was active in support of the nomi- 
nees. His name is known among the students of the money question 
in every civilized nation, and his faithful and continuous labors in 
behalf of the restoration of bimetallism have g^ven him a warm place 
in the hearts of his countrymen. 

Mr* Weaver^ PopisUst 

Mr. Weaver was elected to Congress in 1878, and served in the 
Forty-sixth, Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Congresses. In January, 1880, 
he introduced the following resolution : 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this House that all currency, whether 
metallic or paper, necessary for the use and convenience of the people, should be 
issued and its volume controlled by the Government and not by or through 
banking corporations, and when so issued should be a full legal tender in pay- 
ment of all debts, public and private. 

Resolved, That it is the judgment of this House that that portion of the 
interest-bearing debt of the United States which shall become redeemable in 
the year 188 1, or prior thereto, being in amount $782,000,000, should not be re- 
funded beyond the power of the Government to call in said obligations and pay 
them at any time, but should be paid as rapidly as possible and according to 
contract. To enable the Government to meet these obligations, the mints of the 
United States should be operated to their full capacity in the coinage of 
standard silver dollars and such other coinage as the business interests of the 
country may require. 

After a thirteen weeks' struggle he secured consideration of this 
resolution, but it was defeated by a vote of 117 to 83. 

He has, ever since his entrance into Congress, been a consistent 
and persistent advocate of the restoration of bimetallism. He was the 
candidate of the Greenback-Labor party for President in 1880, and 
received 307,740 votes. In 1892 he was the candidate of the Populist 
party for the Presidency and received 1,040,600 votes. His platform 
in 1892 was the first national platform to expressly declare for the 
ratio of 16 to i. In 1894 he was nominated for Congress on a 16 to i 
platform in the Council Bluffs (Iowa) district by the Populists and 
Democrats. After the Democratic National Convention of 1896 had 
declared unequivocally for independent bimetallism, Mr. Weaver took 


an active part in securing co-operation between the silver forces, and, 
during the campaign, gave his entire time to the success of the cause. 
His speech in the St. Louis Convention, which will be found in a sub- 
sequent chapter, contains his defense of the position taken by him. 

Mr. TeUer, Silver Republican. 

Mr. Teller has served in the Senate and Cabinet for twenty years, 
and has been connected with the silver question since 1880. During 
that time he has done much in and out of Congress with tongue and 
pen to advance the cause of bimetallism. In 1892 he was instrumental 
in securing in the Republican National Convention a declaration in 
favor of bimetallism, and he was a conspicuous actor in the prolonged 
fight in the Senate against unconditional repeal. His standing in, and 
long connection with, the Republican party, together with his great 
ability and high character, made him the acknowledged leader of the 
silver Republicans. At St. Louis he was at the head of the revolt 
against the Republican platform, and his withdrawal from the party 
cost the Republican candidate thousands of votes. The silver Repub- 
licans favored his nomination for the Presidency, and his State voted 
for him on the first ballot in the Democratic Convention. After the 
nomination had been made he joined with other leading silver Repub- 
licans in an address supporting the Democratic ticket and during the 
campaign did yeoman service upon the stump. 

In dedicating this book to these three pioneers, I desire to record 
my appreciation of the work which they have done, my esteem for 
them as public men and my gratitude to them for their many acts of 
kindness to me, both before and since my nomination. 

In giving an account of my travels during the campaign I have not 
attempted to mention every place stopped at, nor have I, as a rule, 
given the names of presiding officers and reception committees. My 
time during waking hours was so fully occupied that I could not then 
make a memorandum of persons and events, and, since neither the 
newspapers nor my memory will supply a correct record, I have gen- 
erally omitted the details of the meetings, except where I met some 
old time acquaintance or some prominent public man. I declined 


private entertainment as far as possible in order to avoid local and 
factional jealousies, and I have only referred to social courtesies ex- 
tended where there seemed a special justification for so doing. 

Space would not permit a reproduction of all the speeches delivered 
by me during the campaign, and those reproduced are not usually 
given in full. I have exercised the Congressional privilege of "revising 
the record," and have, to a large extent, eliminated repetition. The 
preparation has been confined to so short a time and the work has been 
done amidst such constant interruptions that I fear many errors of 
expression may be found which more care might have prevented. 


William Jennings Bryan 


THE impelling cause which is responsible for this article needs no 
elaboration. During the last few months, so many conflicting 
statements have been made by writers, friendly and unfriendly, 
concerning Mr. Bryan's ancestry, habits, education, etc., that a short 
biography based upon fact seems a necessary part of this book. 

Writing from the standpoint of a wife, eulogy and criticism are 
equally out of place. My only purpose, therefore, is to present in a 
simple story those incidents which may be of interest to the general 



WITHIN the last few years Mr. Bryan has corresponded with a 
number of persons bearing the family name. Some of the 
Bryans trace their ancestry to Ireland, some to Wales, while 
others have followed the name through Irish into English history. 
A biographical sketch written under the supervision of Silas L. Bryan 
states that the family is of Irish extraction. 

William Bryan, who lived in Culpeper County, Virginia, some- 
thing more than one hundred years ago, is the first ancestor whose 
name is known to the descendants. Where he was born, and when, 
is a matter of conjecture. He owned a large tract of land among the 
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, near Sperryville. The family 
name of his wife is unknown. There were born to the pair five chil- 
dren: James, who removed to Kentucky; John, who remained upon 
the homestead ; Aquilla, who removed to Ohio ; and Francis and Eliza- 
beth, about whom nothing is known. 

John Bryan, the second son, was born about 1790, and at an early 
age married Nancy Lillard. The Lillard family is an old American 
family of English extraction and is now represented by numerous 
descendants scattered over Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. To 
John Bryan and wife ten children were born, all of whom, excepting 
Russell and Elizabeth, are deceased. The oldest, William, removed to 
Missouri in early life and lived near Troy until his death, some ten years 
ago. John and Howard died in infancy. Jane married Joseph Cheney 
and lived at Gallipolis, Ohio. Nancy married George Baltzell, and 
lived in Marion County, Illinois. Martha married Homer Smith, and 
lived at Gallipolis, Ohio, later removing to Marion County, Illinois. 
The next child, Robert, a physician, was killed in a steamboat explosion 
while yet a young man. Silas Lillard, father of William Jennings 
Bryan, was bom November 4th, 1822, near Sperryville, in what was 
then Culpeper, but is now a part of Rappahannock County, Virginia. 
The next child, Russell, located at Salem, Illinois, where he has since 
lived. Elizabeth, the youngest of the family, married another George 
Baltzell. She early removed to Lewis County, Missouri, her present 



About the year 1828 John Bryan removed with his family to the 
western portion of Virginia, in what is now West Virginia. His last 
residence was near Point Pleasant, where both he and his wife died, 
the latter in 1834, the former in 1836. 

Silas, then but a boy, went West and made his home a part of the 
time with his sister, Nancy Baltzell, and a part of the time with his 
brother, William. He was ambitious to obtain an education, and after 
making his way through the public schools, entered McKendree Col- 
lege, at Lebanon, Illinois, where he completed his course, graduating 
with honors, in 1849. Owing to lack of means he was occasionally 
compelled to drop out of college for a time and earn enough to con- 
tinue his studies. At first he spent these vacations working as a farm 
hand, but later, when sufficiently advanced in his studies, taught 
school. After graduation he studied law, was admitted to the bar, 
and began the practice at Salem, Illinois, at the age of twenty-nine. 
On November 4th, 1852, he married Mariah Elizabeth Jennings. Dur- 
ing the same year he was elected to the State Senate and served in 
that body for eight years. In i860 he was elected to the circuit bench, 
and served twelve years. In 1872 he was nominated for Congress 
upon the Democratic ticket, receiving the endorsement of the Green- 
back party. He was defeated by a plurality of 240 by General James 
Martin, Republican candidate. As a member of the convention of 
1872, which framed the present Constitution of Illinois, he introduced 
a resolution declaring it to be the sense of the convention that all offi- 
ces, legislative, executive and judicial, provided for by the new Con- 
stitution, should be filled by elections by the people. Before his elec- 
tion to the bench, and after his retirement therefrom, he practiced law 
in Marion and the adjoining counties. He was a member of the Baptist 
Church, the church to which his parents belonged, and was a very 
devout man. He prayed at morning, noon and night, and was a 
firm believer in providential direction in the affairs of life. He was a 
man of strong character, stern integrity and high purpose. He took 
rank among the best lawyers in Southern Illinois, and was a fluent, 
graceful and forcible speaker. His mind was philosophical and his 
speeches argumentative. In politics he was a Democrat in the broadest 
sense of the word and had an abiding faith in republican institutions 
and in the capacity of the people for self-government. He was a staunch 
defender of higher education and gave financial as well as moral sup- 
port to various institutions of learning. He regarded the science of 
government as highly honorable and used to say that the guest cham- 


ber of his home was reserved for "politicians and divines." He was 
broad and tolerant in his religious views. It was his custom, after he 
removed to the farm, to send a load of hay at harvest time to each 
preacher and priest in Salem. While a public man during a large part 
of his life, he was eminently domestic. He died March 30, 1880, and 
was buried in the cemetery at Salem. His will provided that all of his 
children should be encouraged to secure "the highest education which 
the generation affords." 

Tlie JenniiigB Family. 

The Jennings family has lived so long in America that the descend- 
ants do not know the date of the immigration of the ancestors to the 
colonies nor is it known positively from what country tlicv came, but 
they are believed to have been English. 

Israel Jennings, who was born about 1774, is the first known an- 
cestor. He was married to Mary Waters about the year 1799, and 
lived in Mason County, Kentucky. In 1818 he moved with his 
family to Walnut Hill, Marion County, Illinois, where his wife died 
in 1844 and he in i860. He was the father of eight children : Israel Jr., 
and George, now deceased; Charles Waters, of whom I shall 
speak later; William W., now living in Texas: Elizabeth, wIkj 
married William Davidson; America, who married (icorj^^e David- 
son; Mary, who married Edward White: ?.nd Ann, who married Rufus 
McElwain. All of the daughters are deceased. 

Charles Waters Jennings was married to Maria Woods Davidson, 
December 14th, 1826, and established a home adjoining the Israel Jen- 
nings homestead. He died in 1872, and his wife in 1885. To this pair 
were bom eight sons and two daughters: Josephus Waters, deceased, 
v;ho lived near the home of his father; Harriet, who married B. F. 
Marshall, and lives at Salem, Illinois; Sarah, who married Robert D. 
Noleman, of Centralia, Illinois, both deceased; Mariah Elizabeth, the 
mother of William Jennings Bryan ; America, deceased, who married 
William C. Stites, then of Marion County, Illinois; Nancy, who mar- 
ried Dr. James A. Davenport and lives at Salem, Illinois; Docia, who 
married A. Van Antwerp, and lives at Sedalia, Missouri; and Zadock, 
who lives near Walnut Hill. 

Mariah Elizabeth Jennings was born near Walnut Hill, Illinois, 
May 24th, 1834. She attended the public schools of the neighborhood, 
and when nearly grown was the pupil of Silas L. Bryan, who was 
nearly twelve years her senior. At an early age she connected herself 
with the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was the church of her 



parents, and remained a member until about 1877, when she united with 
the Baptist Church, at Salem, to which her husband belonged. She 
was a woman of excellent sense and superior management. Her hus- 
band's frequent absence from home threw upon her a larg« portion of 
the responsibility for the care and discipline of the family, and for some 
years after his death her entire time was given to the nurture and edu- 
cation of the five minor children. When the boys were grown she re- 
moved from the farm to Salem, and became an active worker in her 
church and in societies for social improvement. She always took a deep 
interest in the political fortunes of her son William, and he has always 
felt indebted to her equally with his father for counsel and instruction. 
She lived during the later years of her life in a home which William 
bought for her use with the first savings from his Congressional salary. 
After a lingering illness, which she bore with great patience, she died 
on the 27th of June, 1896, and was laid to rest by the side of her 

To Silas Lillard and Mariah Elizabeth Bryan were born nine chil- 
dren. Of these Virginia, John and Hiram died in infancy. Russell 
Jones, born June 12th, 1864, died at the age of 17, on the eve of his 
departure for college. Five children are now living, namely : 

Francis Mariah, bom March i8th, 1858. 

William Jennings, born March 19th, i860. 

Charles Wayland, born February loth, 1867. 

Nancy Lillard, born November 4th, 1869. 

Mary Elizabeth, bom May 14th, 1872. 

Francis M. Bryan (now Baird), lives at Salem, Illinois, and Charles 
W., in Lincoln, Nebraska. 

The Bryan, Lillard, Jennings and Davidson families all belonged to 
the middle classes. They were industrious, law-abiding. God-fearing 
people. No member of the family ever became very rich, and none 
were ever abjectly poor. Farming has been the occupation of the ma- 
jority, while others have followed the legal and medical professions and 
mercantile pursuits. 

W^illiam Jennings Bryan was born in Salem, Illinois, March 19, 
i860. He was sturdy, round-limbed and fond of play. There is a 
tradition that his appetite, which has since been a constant companion, 
developed very early. The pockets of his first trousers were always 
filled with bread, which he kept for an emergency. One of the mem- 
ories belonging to this period was his ambition to be a minister, but 


this soon gave place to determination to become a lawyer "like father." 
This purpose was a lasting one, and his education was directed toward 
that end. 

His father purchased a farm of five hundred acres, one mile from 
the village, and when William was six years old the family removed to 
their new home. Here he studied, worked and played, until ten years of 
age, his mother being his teacher. He learned to read quite early ; after 
committing his lessons to memory, he stood upon a little table and 
spoke them to his mother. This was his first recorded effort at speech- 
making. His work was feeding the deer, which his father kept in a 
small park, helping care for the pigs and chickens, in short the variety 
of work known as "doing chores." His favorite sport was rabbit hunt- 
ing with dogs. I am not sure that these expeditions were harmful to 
the game, but they have furnished his only fund of adventure for the 
amusement of our children. 

At the age of ten, William entered the public school at Salem, and 
during his five years' attendance, was not an especially brilliant pupil, 
though he never failed in an examination. In connection with his 
school, he developed an interest in the work of literary and debating 

His father's Congressional campaign in 1872 was his first political 
awakening, and from that time on he always cherished the thought 
of entering public life. His idea was to first win a reputation and se- 
cure a competency at the bar, but he seized the unexpected opportunity 
which came to him in 1890. 

At fourteen he became a member of the Cumberland Presbyterian 
church. Later, he joined the First Presbyterian church at Jackson- 
ville, Illinois, and, upon our removal to Nebraska, brought his letter 
to the First Presbyterian church of Lincoln, to which he still be- 
longs. It may not be amiss at this point to quote from an eulogy which 
Mr. Bryan delivered upon a colleague in the Fifty-third Congress. 
This extract will serve a double purpose, in that it gives his views upon 
immortality, and, at the same time, presents a passage which I think 
may without impropriety be called a finished bit of English. 

I shall not believe that even now his light is extinguished. If the Father 
deigns to touch with divine power the cold and pulseless heart of the buried 
acorn, and make it burst forth from its prison walls, will He leave neglected in 
the earth the soul of man, who was made in the image of his Creator? If He 
stoops to fifive to the rosebush, whose withered blossoms float upon the breeze, 
the sweet assurance of another springtime, will He withhold the words of hope 
from the sons of men when the frosts of winter come? If Matter, mute and in- 
animate, though changed by the forces of Nature into a multitude of forms, 


can never die, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation after it has paid 
a brief visit, like a royal guest, to this tenement of clay? 

Rather let us believe that He who, in His apparent prodigality, wastes not 
the raindrop, the blade of grass, or the evening's sighing zephyr, but makes 
them all to carry out His eternal plans, has given immortality to the mortal, 
and gathered to Himself the generous spirit of our friend. 

Instead of mourning, let us look up and address him in the words of the 

"Thy day has come, not gone; 
Thy sun has risen, not set; 
Thy life is now beyond 
The reach of death or change. 
Not ended — but begun. 
O, noble soul! O, gentle heart! Hail, and farewell." 

CoUege Life* 

At fifteen he entered Whipple Academy, the preparatory depart- 
ment of Illinois College, at Jacksonville, Illinois, and with this step a 
changed life began. Vacations found him at home, but for eight years 
he led the life of a student, and then took up the work of his profession. 
Six years of his school life were spent in Jacksonville, in the home of 
Dr. Hiram K. Jones, a relative. The atmosphere of this home had its 
influence upon the growing lad. Dr. Jones is a man of strong character, 
of scholarly tastes, and of high ideals, and during the existence of the 
Concord school was a lecturer upon Platonic Philosophy. His wife, 
too, was a woman of rare attainments, and having no children, they 
gave the youth a home in the fullest sense of that word. 

His parents wished him to take a classical course and while some- 
times grumbling over his Latin and Greek, he has since recognized the 
wisdom of their choice. Of these two languages, Latin was his favorite. 
He had a strong preference for mathematics, and especially for geom- 
etry, and has believed that the mental discipline acquired in this 
study has since been useful in argument. He was, too, an earnest 
student of political economy. This entrance into college life brings to 
mind an incident which shows both the young man's rapid growth 
and his father's practical views. During the first year of his absence, 
he discovered, as holidays drew near, that his trousers were becoming 
too short, and wrote home for money to buy a new pair. His father 
responded that as it was so near vacation he need not make any pur- 
chase until he reached home, and added: "My son, you may as well 
learn now, that people will measure you by the length of your head, 
rather than by the length of your breeches." 


As to college athletics, he played very little at baseball or at foot- 
ball, but was fond of foot-racing and of jumping. Three years after 
graduation on Osage Orange Day, he won a medal for the broad 
or standing jump, in a contest open to students and to alumni. The 
medal records twelve feet and four inches as the distance covered. 

A prize contest always fired William's ambition. It may interest 
the boys who read these pages to know of his record on this point, and 
to note his gradual rise. During his first year at the Academy he 
declaimed Patrick Henry's masterpiece and not only failed to win a 
prize, but ranked well down in the list. Nothing daunted, the second 
year found him again entered with "The Palmetto and the Pine" as 
his subject. This time he ranked third. The next year, when a 
Freshman, he tried for a prize in Latin prose, and won half of the 
second prize. Later in the year, he declaimed "Bernardo del Carpio," 
and gained the second prize. In his Sophomore year he entered another 
contest, with an essay on the not altogether novel subject, "Labor.'* 
This time the first prize rewarded his work. An oration upon "In- 
dividual Powers" gave him the first prize in the Junior year. A 
part of this prize was a volume of Bryant's poems. Mr. Bryan gave 
me this book, his first gift, because it contained his favorite poem, 
an ode to a waterfowl, which concludes : 

He who, from zone to zone, 

Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight. 

In the long way that I must tread alone, 

Will lead my steps aright. 

The winning of the Junior prize entitled him to represent Illinois 
College in the intercollegiate oratorical contest which was held at 
Galesburg, Illinois, in the fall of 1880. His oration was upon "Justice." 
and was awarded the second prize of fifty dollars. Gen. John C. 
Black, of Illinois, was one of the judges in this contest and marked Mr. 
Bryan one hundred on delivery. Upon invitation of Mr. Black, the 
young man called at the hotel and received many valuable suggestions 
upon the art of speaking. At the time of graduation he was elected 
class orator by his class, and, having the highest rank in scholarship 
during the four years' course, delivered the valedictory. Upon enter- 
ing the academy, he joined the Sigma Pi society, and was an active 
member for six years, profiting much by the training in essay, decla- 
mation and debate. 

My personal knowledge of Mr. Bryan dates from September, 1879. 
He was then entering upon his Junior year. At the risk of depart- 
ing from the purpose of this biography, I shall speak of my first im- 


pressions. I saw him first in the parlors of the young ladies' school 
which I attended in Jacksonville. He entered the room with several 
other students, was taller than the rest, and attracted my attention at 
once. His face was pale and thin; a pair of keen, dark eyes looked 
out from beneath heavy brows; his nose was prominent — too large to 
look well, I thought; a broad, thin-lipped mouth and a square chin, 
completed the contour of his face. He was neat, though not fastidious 
in dress, and stood firmly and with dignity. I noted particularly his 
hair and his smile. The former, black in color, fine in quality, and 
parted distressingly straight; the latter, expansive and expressive. In 
later years this smile has been the subject of considerable comment, 
but the well-rounded cheeks of Mr. Bryan now check its onward march, 
and no one has seen the real breadth of the smile who did not see 
it in the early days. Upon one occasion, a heartless observer was 
heard to remark, "That man can whisper in his own ear," but this 
was a cruel exaggeration. 

During the summer of 1880, Mr. Bryan attended his first political 
meeting. I record the details of this gathering for the encouragement 
of young speakers. He was to make a Democratic speech at a farm- 
er's picnic near Salem, and the bills announced two other speakers, 
Mr. Bryan standing third upon the list. Upon reaching the grove, he 
found the two speakers and an audience of four, namely, the owner of 
the grove, one man in control of a wheel of fortune, and two men in 
charge of a lemonade stand. After waiting an hour for an audience 
which failed to come, the meeting adjourned sine die, and Mr. Bryan 
went home. Later in the fall, however, he made four speeches for 
Hancock and English, the first being delivered in the court house at 

The graduating exercises of Illinois College occurred in June, 
1881. Mr. Bryan's oration and valedictory address are given below, 
not because they posses great literary merit, but in order to show 
his style and the trend of his mind at that time. 

Gfaduating: Oratioo* Subject: Character* 

It is said of the ermine that it will suffer capture rather than allow pollution 
to touch its glossy coat, but take away that coat and the animal is worthless. 

We have ermines in higher life — ^those who love display. The desire to seem, 
rather than to be, is one of the faults which our age, as well as other ages, must 

Appearance too often takes the place of reality — ^the stamp of the coin is 
there, and the glitter of the gold, but, after all, it is but a worthless wash. 
Sham is carried into every department of life, and we are being corrupted by 



show and surface. We are too apt to judge people by what they have, rather 
I than by what they are; we have too few Hamlets who are bold enough to pro- 

claim, "I know not seem!" 

The counterfeit, however, only proves the value of the coin, and, although 
^ reputation may in some degree be taking the place of character, yet the latter 

has lost none of its worth, and, now, as of old, is a priceless gem, wherever 
found. Its absence and presence, alike, prove its value. Have you not con- 
' versed with those whose brilliant wit, pungent sarcasm and well-framed sen- 

V tences failed to conceal a certain indescribable something which made you dis- 

trust every word they uttered? Have you not listened to those whose elo- 
> quence dazzled, whose pretended earnestness enkindled in you an enthusiasm 

\ equal to their own, and yet, have you not felt that behind all this there was 

r lurking a monster that repelled the admiration which their genius attracted? 

Are there not those, whom like the Greeks we fear, even when they are bring- 
ing gifts? That something is want of character, or, to speak more truly, the 
possession of bad character, and it shows itself alike in nations and individuals. 
Eschines was talented; his oration against the crowning of Demosthenes 
was a masterly production, excellently arranged, elegantly written and effec- 
tively delivered, so extraodinary was its merits, that, when he afterward, as an 
exile, delivered it before a Roadian audience, they expressed their astonishment 
that it had not won for him his cause, but it fell like a chilling blast upon his 
hearers at Athens, because he was the "hireling of Philip.*' 

Napoleon swept like a destroying angel over almost the entire eastern 
world, evincing a military genius unsurpassed, skill marvelous in its perfection, 
and a courage which savored almost of rashness, yet ever demonstrated the 
wisdom of its dictates. For a while he seemed to have robbed fortune of her 
secret, and bewildered nations gazed in silence while he turned the streams of 
success according to his vascillating whims. 

Although endowed with a perception keen enough to discern the hidden 
plans of opposing generals, he could but see one road to immortality — a path 
which led through battle-fields and marshes wet with human gore; over rivers 
of blood and streams of tears that flowed from orphans* eyes — a path along 
whose length the widow's wail made music for his marching hosts. But he is 
fallen, and over his tomb no mourner weeps. Talent, genius, power, these he 
had— character, he had none. 

But there are those who have both influence through life and unending 
praises after death; there are those who have by their ability, inspired the admi- 
ration of the people and held it by the purity of their character. It is often 
remarked that some men have a name greater than their works will justify; 
the secret lies in the men themselves. 

It was his well-known character, not less than his eloquent words; his deep 
convictions, not less than the fire of his utterance; his own patriotism, not 
less than his invectives against the Macedonian that brought to the lips of the 
reanimated Greeks that memorable sentence, "Let us go against Philip." 

Perhaps we could not find better illustrations of the power and worth of 
character than are presented in the lives of two of our own countrymen — names 
about which cluster in most sacred nearness the affections of the American peo- 
ple — ^honored dust over which have fallen the truest tears of sorrow ever shed 


by a nation for its heroes — the father and savior of their common country — ^thc 
one, the appointed guardian of its birth; the other, the preserver of its life. 

Both were reared by the hand of Providence for the work entrusted to their 
care, both were led by nature along the rugged path of poverty; both formed 
a character whose foundations were laid broad and deep in the purest truths of 
morality — a character which stood unshaken amid the terrors of war and the 
tranquillity of peace; a character which allowed neither cowardice upon the 
battle-field nor tyranny in the presidential chair. Thus did they win the hearts 
of their countrymen and prepare for themselves a lasting place of rest in the 
tender memories of a grateful people. 

History but voices our own experience when it awards to true nobility of 
character the highest place among the enviable possessions of man. 

Nor is it the gift of fortune. In this, at least, we are not creatures of cir- 
cumstances; talent, special genius may be the gift of nature; position in society 
the gift of birth; respect may be bought with wealth; but neither one nor all of 
these can give character. It is a slow but sure growth to which every thought 
and action lends its aid. To form character is to form grooves in which are 
to flow the purposes of our lives. It is to adopt principles which are to be the 
measure of our actions, the criteria of our deeds. This we are doing each day, 
either consciously or unconsciously. There is character formed by our associ- 
ation with each friend, by every aspiration of the heart, by every object toward 
which our affections go out, yea, by every thought that flies on its lightning 
wing through the dark recesses of the brain. 

It is a law of mind that it acts most readily in familiar paths, hence, repeti- 
tion forms habit, and almost before we are aware, we are chained to a certain 
routine of action from which it is difficult to free ourselves. We imitate that 
which we admire. If we revel in stories of blood, and are pleased with the 
sight of barbaric cruelty, we find it easy to become a Caligula or 'a Domitian; 
we picture to ourselves scenes of cruelty in which we are actors, and soon 
await only the opportunity to vie in atrocity with the Neroes of the past. 

If we delight in gossip, and are not content unless each neighbor is laid 
upon the dissecting table, we form a character unenviable indeed, and must 
be willing to bear the contempt of all the truly good, while we roll our bit 
of scandal as a sweet morsel under the tongue. 

But if each day wc gather some new truths, plant ourselves more firmly 
upon principles which are eternal, guard every thought and action, that it may 
be pure, and conform our lives more nearly to that Perfect Model, we shall 
form a character that will be a fit background on which to paint the noblest 
deeds and the grandest intellectual and moral achievements; a character that 
cannot be concealed, but which will bring success in this life and form the 
best preparation for that which is beyond. 

The formation of character is a work which continues through life, but at 
no time is it so active as in youth and early manhood. At this time impres- 
sions are most easily made, and mistakes most easily corrected. It is the sea- 
son for the sowing of the seed — the springtime of life. There is no complaint 
in the natural world because each fruit and herb brings forth after its kind; 
there is no complaint if a neglected seed-time brings a harvest of want; there 
is no cry of injustice if thistles spring from thistle-seed sown. As little reason 


have we to murmur if in after-life we discover a character dwarfed and de- 
formed by the evil thoughts and actions of today; as little reason have we to 
impeach the wisdom of God if our wild oats, as they are called in palliation, 
leave scars upon our manhood, which years of reform fail to wear away. 

Character is the entity, the individuality of the person, shining from every 
window of the soul, either as a beam of purity, or as a clouded ray that be- 
trays the impurity within. The contest between light and darkness, right 
and wrong, goes on; day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment, our 
characters are being formed, and this is the all-important question which 
comes to us in accents ever growing fainter as we journey from the cradle 
to the grave, "Shall those characters be good or bad?" 


Beloved instructors, it is character not less than intellect that you have 
striven to develop. As we stand at the end of our college course, and turn our 
eyes toward the scenes forever past — as our memories linger on the words of 
wisdom which have fallen from your lips, we are more and more deeply im- 
pressed with the true conception of duty which you have ever shown. You 
have sought not to trim the lamp of genius until the light of morality is 
paled by its dazzling brilliance, but to encourage and strengthen both. These 
days are over. No longer shall we listen to your warning voices, no more 
meet you in these familiar class-rooms, yet on our hearts "deeply has sunk 
the lesson" you have given, and shall not soon depart. 

We thank you for your kind and watchful care, and shall ever cherish 
your teachings with that devotion which sincere gratitude inspires. 

It is fitting that we express to you also, honored trustees, our gratitude for 
the privileges which you have permitted us to enjoy. 

The name of the institution whose interests you guard, will ever be dear 
to us as the school-room, to whose influence we shall trace whatever success 
coming years may bring. 

Dear class-mates, my lips refuse to bid you a last good-bye; we have so 
long been joined together in a community of aims and interests; so often met 
and mingled our thoughts in confidential friendship; so often planned and 
worked together, that it seems like rending asunder the very tissues of the 
heart to separate us now. 

But this long and happy association is at an end, and now as we go forth 
in sorrow, as each one must, to begin alone the work which lies before us, let 
us encourage each other with strengthening words. 

Success is brought by continued labor and continued watchfulness. We 

must struggle on, not for one moment hesitate, nor take one backward step; 

for in language of the poet — 

The gates of hell are open night and day, 
Smooth the descent and easy Is the way; 
But to return and view the cheerful skies. 
In this, the past and mighty labor lies. 

We launch our vessels upon the uncertain sea of life alone, yet, not alone, 
for around us arc friends who anxiously and prayerfully watch our course. They 
will rejoice if we arrive safely at our respective havens, or weep with bitter 


tears, if, one by one, our weather-beaten barks are lost forever in the surges 
of the deep. 

We have esteemed each other, loved each other, and now must with each 
other part. God grant that we may all so live as to meet in the better world, 
where parting is unknown. 

Halls of learning, fond Alma Mater, farewell. We turn to take one "last, 
long, lingering look" at thy receding walls. We leave thee now to be ush- 
ered out into the varied duties of an active life. 

However high our names may be inscribed upon the gilded scroll of 
fame, to thee we all the honor give, to thee all praises bring. And when, in 
after years, we're wearied by the bustle of a busy world, our hearts will often 
long to turn and seek repose beneath thy sheltering shade. 

When fall came, he entered the Union College of Law at Chicago. 
Out of school hours his time was spent in the office of ex-Senator 
Lyman Trumbull, who had been a political friend of Mr. Bryan's 
father. This acquaintance, together with the fact that a warm 
friendship existed between Mr. Bryan and his law school classmate, 
Henry Trumbull, the judge's son, led to the establishment of a second 
foster home — a home in which he and his family have ever found a 
cordial welcome. In this home, but lately bereft of its head, he spent 
his first Sabbath after the Democratic National Convention. 

Mr. Bryan stood well in law school, taking an especial interest in 
constitutional law. Here again, he was connected with the debating 
society of the college, and took an active part in its meetings. At 
graduation, his thesis was a defense of the jury system. His first 
fee was earned in the County Court at Salem. 

To these years of study belong many things which are of interest 
to us, but which are too trivial for the public eye. I shall venture 
upon one, however. Many people have remarked upon the fondness 
which Mr. Bryan shows for quoting Scripture. This habit is one 
of long standing, as the following circumstance shows. The time came 
when it seemed proper to have a little conversation with my father and 
this was something of an ordeal, as father is rather a reserved man. 
In his dilemma, William sought refuge in the Scriptures, and began: 
**Mr. Baird, I have been reading Proverbs a good deal lately, and 
find that Solomon says: 'Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a good thing, 
and obtaineth favour of the Lord!'" Father, being something of a 
Bible scholar himself, replied: "Yes, I believe Solomon did say that, 
but Paul suggests that, while he that marrieth doeth well, he that 
marrieth not doeth better." This was disheartening, but the young 
man saw his way through. "Solomon would be the best authority 
upon this point," he rejoined, "because Paul was never married, while 


Solomon had a number of wives." After this friendly tilt the matter 

was satisfactorily arranged. 

A Lawyer* 

On July 4, 1883, Mr. Bryan began the practice of his profession in 
Jacksonville, Illinois. Desk room was obtained in the office of Brown 
& Kirby, one of the leading firms in the city, and the struggle en- 
countered by all young professional men began. The first six months 
were rather trying to his patience, and he was compelled to sup- 
plement his earnings by a small draft upon his father's estate. Toward 
the close of the year, he entered into correspondence with his former 
law school classmate, Henry Trumbull, then located at Albuquerque, 
New Mexico, and discussed with him the advisability of removing 
to that territory. After the ist of January, however, clients became 
more numerous, and he felt encouraged to make Jacksonville his 
permanent home. The following spring he took charge of the col- 
lection department of Brown & Kirby 's office, and in a little more than 
a year his income seemed large enough to support two. During the 
summer of 1884, a modest home was planned and built, and on 
October i, 1884, we were married. 

During the next three years we lived comfortably, though econom- 
ically, and laid by a small amount. Politics lost none of its charms, 
and each campaign found Mr. Bryan speakino^, usually in our own 

Three years after graduation, he attended the commencement 
at Illinois College, delivered the Master's oration, and received 
the degree. His subject on that occasion was "American Citizenship.'' 

In the summer of 1887, legal business called him to Kansas and 
Iowa, and a Sabbath was spent in Lincoln, Nebraska, with a law 
school classmate, Mr. A. R. Talbot. Mr. Bryan was greatly im- 
pressed with the beauty and business enterprise of Lincoln, and with 
the advantages which a growing capital furnishes for a young law- 
yer. He returned to Illinois full of enthusiasm for the West, and per- 
fected plans for our removal thither. No political ambitions entered 
into this change of residence, as the city, county and state were 
strongly Republican. He arrived in Lincoln, October i, 1887, and 
a partnership was formed with Mr. Talbot. As Mr. Bryan did not 
share in the salary which Mr. Talbot received as a railroad attorney, he 
had to begin again at the bottom of the ladder. During this winter 
Ruth and I remained in Jacksonville, and in the spring following a 
second house was built — the one we now occupy — and the family was 
reunited in its Western home. The practice again became sufficient 


for our needs, and during the three years which followed we were 
again able to add to our reserve fund. I might here suggest an answer 
to a hostile criticism, namely, that Mr. Bryan did not distinguish him- 
self as a lawyer. Those who thus complain should consider that he 
entered the practice at twenty-three and left it at thirty, and during 
that period began twice, and twice became more than self-supporting. 
At the time of his election to Congress his practice was in a thriving 
condition, and fully equal to that of any man of his age in the city. 
Mr. Bryan often met such demands as are commonly made upon law- 
yers in the way of short addresses, toasts, etc. Some of this post- 
prandial oratory discussed questions of public importance. The fol- 
lowing was a toast upon *The Law and the Gospel," delivered at a 
banquet given by the St. Paul Methodist church of Lincoln, in honor 
of some distinguished visitors : 

The Law axid the GospeL At a Methodist Chtstch Banquet 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is rather by accident than by 
design that this sentiment has fallen to me. Had not my law partner been 
called unexpectedly from the State he would have responded with more propri- 
ety and more ability to "The Law and the Gospel." 

These are important words; each covers a wide field by itself and together 
they include all government, There is not between them, as some suppose, 
a wide gulf fixed. Many have commenced with us only to be called to a higher 
sphere, and a few ministers have come to us when they were convinced that they 
had answered to another's call. 

In the earlier days the prophet was also the lawgiver. He who wore the 
priestly robe held in his hands the scales of justice. But times are changed. 
For the good of the State and for the welfare of the church, the moral and the 
civil law have been separated. Today we owe a double allegiance, and "render 
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are 
God's." Their governments are concentric circles and can never interfere. 
Between what religion commands and what the law compels there is, and ever 
must be, a wide margin, as there is also between what religion forbids and what 
the law prohibits. In many things we are left to obey or disobey the instruc- 
tions of the Divine Ruler, answerable to Him only for our conduct. The gos- 
pel deals with the secret purposes of the heart as well as with the outward life, 
while the civil law must content itself with restraining the arm outstretched 
for another's hurt or with punishing the actor after the injury is done. 

Next to the ministry I know of no more noble profession than the law. 
The object aimed at is justice, equal and exact, and if it does not reach that 
end at once it is because the stream is diverted by selfishness or checked by 
ignorance. Its principles ennoble and its practice elevates. If you point to the 
pettifogger, I will answer that he is as much out of place in the temple of justice 
as is the hypocrite in the house of God. You will find the "book on tricks" in 
the library of the legal bankrupt — nowhere else. In no business in life do 


honesty, truthfulness and uprightness of conduct pay a larger dividend upon 
the investment than in the law. He is not only blind to his highest welfare 
and to his greatest good, but also treading upon dangerous ground, who fancies 
that mendacity, loquacity and pertinacity are the only accomplishments of a 
successful lawyer. 

You cannot judge a man's life by the success of a moment, by the victory 
of an hour, or even by the results of a year. You must view his life as a whole. 
You must stand where you can see the man as he treads the entire path that 
leads from the cradle to the grave — now crossing the plain, now climbing the 
steeps, now passing through pleasant fields, now wending his way with diffi- 
culty between rugged rocks — tempted, tried, tested, triumphant. The com- 
pleted life of every lawyer, either by its success or failure, emphasizes the words 
of Solomon — "The path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and 
more unto the perfect day." 

By practicing upon the highest plane the lawyer may not win the greatest 
wealth, but he wins that which wealth cannot purchase and is content to know 
and feel that "a good name is rather to be chosen than great riches; and loving 
favor rather than silver and gold." 

There are pioneers of the gospel whose names you speak with reverence, 
Calvin, Knox, the Wesleys and Asbury, besides many still living, and you love 
them not without cause. There are those in our profession whom we delight 
to honor. Justinian and Coke, Blackstone and Jay, Marshall and Kent, Story 
and Lincoln, men who have stood in the thickest of the fight* have met every 
temptation peculiar to our profession, and yet maintained their integrity. 

It is a fact to which we point with no little pride, that with a history of an 
hundred years no member of the Supreme Court of the United States has ever 
been charged with corrupt action, although untold millions have been involved 
in the litigation before the court. Nor do I now recall any member of the 
supreme court of any State who has been convicted of misusing his office. 

"The Law and the Gospel." Great in their honored names, great in their 
history, great in their influence. To a certain extent they supplement each 
other. The law asks of the gospel counsel, not commands. The gospel goes 
far beyond the reach of law, for while the law must cease to operate when its 
subject dies, the gospel crosses the dark river of death and lightens up the 
world which lies beyond the tomb. The law is negative, the gospel positive; 
the law says "do not unto others that which you would not have others do unto 
you," while the gospel declares that we should "do to others that which we 
would that others should do unto us." 

"The Law and the Gospel." They form an exception to the rule that in 
union there is strength, for each is strongest when alone. And I believe that 
the greatest prosperity of the State and greatest growth of the church will be 
found when the law and the gospel walk, not hand in hand, but side by side. 

In Politics* 

Mr. Bryan became actively connected with the Democratic or- 
ganization in Nebraska immediately after coming to the State, his 
first political speech being made at Seward in the spring of 1888, 


Soon afterward he went as a delegate to the State convention; this 
gave him an acquaintance with the leading Democrats of the State 
and resulted in a series of speeches. He made a canvass of the First 
Congressional district that fall in behalf of Hon. J. Sterling Morton, and 
also visited some thirty counties throughout the State. Mr. Morton 
was defeated by thirty-four hundred, the district being normally re- 

When the campaign of 1890 opened, there seemed small hope of 
carrying the district and there was but little rivalry for the nomination. 
Mr. Bryan was selected without opposition, and at once began a vigor- 
ous campaign. An invitation to joint debate was issued by his com- 
mittee and accepted by his opponent, Hon. W. J. Connell, of Omaha, 
who then represented the district. These debates excited attention 
throughout the State. I have always regarded the first debate of this 
series as marking an important epoch in Mr. Bryan's life. The meet- 
ing took place in Lincoln. I had never before seen Mr. Bryan so pre- 
occupied and so intent on making his effort acceptable. He had the 
opening and the closing speeches. The hall was packed with friends 
of both candidates and applause was quite evenly divided until the 
closing speech. I dare not describe this scene as it stands out in my 
memory. The people had not expected such a summing-up of the 
discussion; each sentence contained an argument; the audience was 
surprised, pleased and enthusiastic. The occasion was a Chicago con- 
vention in miniature, and was satisfactory to those most concerned. 
In addition to these eleven joint contests, Mr. Bryan made a thorough 
canvass, speaking about eighty times and visiting every city and vil- 
lage in the district. Though these debates were crisp and sharp in 
argument, they were marked by the utmost friendliness between the 
opponents. At the close of the last debate, Mr. Bryan presented to Mr. 
Connell a copy of Gray's Elegy, with the following remarks: 

Presentatioa of Gray's Elegy at Gose of Debate* 

Mr. Connell: We now bring to a close this series of debates which was 
arranged by our committees. I am glad that we have been able to conduct 
these discussions in a courteous and friendly manner. If I have, in any way, 
offended you in word or deed I offer apology and regret, and as freely forgive. 
I desire to present to you in remembrance of these pleasant meetings this little 
volume, because it contains "Gray's Elegy," in perusing which I trust you will 
find as much pleasure and profit as I have found. It is one of the most htzn- 
tiful and touching tributes to humble life that literature contains. Grand in its 
sentiment and sublime in its simplicity, we may both find in it a solace in vic- 
tory or defeat. If success should crown your efforts in this campaign, and it 






^ should be your lot "The applause of listening senates to command," and I am 

J left 

A youth to fortune and to fame unknown. 

Forget not us who in the common walks of life perform our part, but in 
I the hour of your triumph recall the verse: 

Let not ambition mocK their useful toil. 

Their homely Joys and destiny obscure; 
Nor grandeur hear, with disdainful smile, 

The short and simple annals of the poor. 

If, on the other hand, by the verdict of my countrymen, I shall be made 
your successor, iet it not be said of you: 

And melancholy marked him for her own. 
But find sweet consolation in the thought: 

Full many a gem of purest ray serene. 

The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear; 
Full many a flower was born to blush unseen. 

And waste Its sweetness on the desert air. 

But whether the palm of victory is given to you or to me, let us remember 
those of whom the poet says: 

Far from the madding crowd's Ignoble strife 

Their sober wishes never learned to stray. 
Along the cool sequestered vales of life 

They keep the noiseless tenor of their way. 

These are the ones most likely to be forgotten by the Government. When 
the poor and weak cry out for relief they, too, often hear no answer but "the 
echo of their cry," while the rich, the strong, the powerful are given an atten- 
I tive ear. For this reason is class legislation dangeious and deadly. It takes 

from those least able to lose and gives to those who are least in need. The 
safety of our farmers and our laborers is not in special legislation, but in equal 
and just laws that bear alike on every man. The great masses of our people 
are interested, not in getting their hands into other people's pockets, but in 
keeping the hands of other people out of their pockets. Let me, in parting, 
express the hope that you and I may be instrumental in bringing our Govern- 
ment back to better laws which will give equal treatment without regard to 
creed or condition. I bid you a friendly farewell. 

When the returns were all in, it was found that Mr. Bryan was 
elected by a plurality of 6,713. Desiring to give his entire time to his 
Congressional work, he, soon after election, so arranged his affairs 
as to retire from practice, although retaining a nominal connection 
with the firm. 

In the speakership caucus with which Congress opened, Mr. Bryan 
supported Mr. Springer, in whose district we had lived when at Jack- 
sonville; in the House, he voted for Mr. Crisp, the caucus nominee. Mr. 
Springer was made chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
and it was largely through his influence that Mr. Bryan was given a 
place upon that committee. His first speech of consequence was the 


tariff speech of March i6, 1892. This was the second important event in 
his career as a pubHc speaker. The place which he held upon the 
Ways and Means Committee is rarely given to a new member, and he 
wished the speech to justify the appointment. It is perhaps unneces- 
sary for me to comment at length upon the reception accorded this 
speech, as the press at the time gave such reports that the occasion 
will probably be remembered by those who read this sketch. This 
speech increased his acquaintance with public men, and added to 
his strength at home. More than one hundred thousand copies were 
circulated by members of Congress. Upon his return to Nebraska, he 
was able to secure re-election in a new district (the State having been 
reapportioned in 189 1) which that year gave the Republican state 
ticket a plurality of 6,500. His opponent this time was Judge A. W. 
Field of our own city. The Democratic committee invited the Repub- 
licans to join in arranging a series of debates, and this invitation was 
accepted. This was even a more bitter contest than the campaign of 
1890, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Foraker and others being called to Nebraska 
to aid the Republican candidate. Besides the eleven debates, which 
aroused much enthusiasm, Mr. Bryan again made a thorough canvass 
of the district. The victory was claimed by both sides until the Fri- 
day following the election, when the result was determined by of- 
ficial count, Mr. Bryan receiving a plurality of 140. 

In the Fifty-Third Congress, Mr. Bryan was reappointed upon the 
Ways and Means Committee and assisted in the preparation of the 
Wilson bill. He was a member of the sub-committee (consisting of 
Representatives MacMillan, Montgomery and himself) which drafted 
the income tax portion of the bill. In the spring of 1893, through the 
courtesy of the State Department, Mr. Bryan obtained a report from the 
several European nations which collect an income tax, and the results 
of this research were embodied in the Congressional Records during the 
debate. He succeeded in having incorporated in the bill a provision 
borrowed from the Prussian law whereby the citizens who have taxable 
incomes make their own returns and those whose incomes are within 
the exemption are relieved from annoyance. On behalf of the com- 
mittee, Mr. Bryan closed the debate upon the income tax, replying 
to Mr. Cockran. 

During the discussion of the Wilson bill, Mr. Bryan spoke in its 
defense. His principal work of the term, however, was in connection 
with monetary legislation. His speech of August 16, 1893, in op- 
position to the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law brought out 
even more hearty commendation than his first tariff speech. Of this 


effort, it may be said that it contained the resuUs of three years of 
careful study upon the money question. 

While in Congress he made a fruitless effort to secure the passage 
of the following bill : 

Be it enacted, etc.: That section 800 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States, of 1878, be amended by adding thereto the words "In civil cases the 
verdict of three-fourths of the jurors constituting the jury shall stand as the 
verdict of the jury, and such a verdict shall have the same force and effect 
as a unanimous verdict." 

The desire to have the law changed so as to permit less than a 
unanimous verdict in civil cases, was one which he had long enter- 
tained. In February, 1890, in response to a toast at a bar association 
banquet in Lincoln, he spoke upon the jury system, advocating the 
same reform. His remarks were as follows : 

The Jury System. 

One of the questions which has been for some time discussed, and which 
is now the subject of controversy, is, "Has the jury system outlived its use- 

I think I voice the opinion of most of those present when to the question 
I answer an emphatic No. 

To defend this answer it will not be necessary to recall the venerable age 
of the system, its past achievements, or the splendid words of praise which have 
been uttered in its behalf. It finds ample excuse for its existence in the needs 
of this time. 

The circumstances which called it into life have passed away and many of its 
characteristics have been entirely changed, but never, I am persuaded, in the 
history of the English speaking people, has the principle which underlies the trial 
by jury been more imperatively demanded than it is today. 

This is an age of rapid accumulation of wealth, and the multiplication of 
corporations gives to money an extraordinary power. 

One million dollars in the hands of one man or one company will out- 
weigh, in the political and social world, ten times that sum divided among a 
thousand people. Can the temple of justice hope to escape its polluting touch 
without some such barrier like that which the jury system raises for its protec- 
tion? Is there not something significant in the direction from which much of 
the complaint of the system comes from? 

If the question, "Shall the jury be abandoned or retained?" were submitted 
to a vote, we would find prominent among the opposing forces the corporate 
influences, the wealthy classes, and those busy citizens to whom jury service, 
or even the duty of an elector, is a burden. 

While the great mass of its supporters would be found among those who 
arc compelled to fight the battle of life unaided by those powerful allies — social 
position, political influence and money — men whose only sword is the ballot, 
and whose only shield, the jury. The jury system is not perfect — we do not 
look for perfection in government — but it has this great advantage, that if the 


verdict falls to one side of the straight line of the law it is usually upon the side 
of the poorest adversary. 

All stand equal before the law, whether they be rich or poor, high or low, 
weak or strong; but no system has yet been devised which will insure exact 
justice at all times between man and man. 

We choose not between a perfect system and an imperfect one, but between 
an imperfect system and one more imperfect still. And if the scales of justice 
cannot be perfectly poised, the safety of society demands that they tip most 
easily toward the side of the weak. 

p'aith in trial by jury implies no reflection upon the integrity of the bench. 
We recall with pardonable pride the names of our illustrious judges whose 
genius and learning have given luster to our profession and whose purity and 
probity have crowned it with glory. 

But they won their distinction in expounding the law and left the decision 
of the facts to those fresh from contact with the busy world. 

If to the present duties of the judge we add those now discharged by the 
jury, is it not possible that the selection of a judge will be secured because 
of his known sympathies? Will not the standard be so lowered that we may 
see upon the bench an agent instead of an arbiter? 

In what position will the suitor be who finds, when called before a biased 
tribunal, that he has neither peremptory challenge nor challenge for cause. 
No more fatal blow could be struck at our national welfare than to give oc- 
casion for the belief that in our courts a man's redress depends upon his ability 
to pay for it. 

If the jury can guard the court room from the invasion of unfair influences 
it will be as valuable for what it prevents as for what it gives. 

Time does not admit of extended reference to those faults in the system 
which give occasion for just criticism, faults which its friends are in duty bound 
to prune away from it. The requirement of an unanimous verdict causes many 
mistrials. In civil causes, where a decision follows the evidence, it is difficult to 
see why substantial justice would not be done by a majority, or, at most, a two- 
thirds majority verdict; but we cannot abandon the old rule in criminal cases 
without trespassing on the sacred right of the accused to the benefit of every 
reasonable doubt; for a divided jury, in itself, raises a doubt as to his guilt. The 
law recently passed making it a misdemeanor for a man to ask for appointment 
as a juror, or for an attorney to seek a place for a friend, is a step in the right 

Between a partisan juror and a professional juror it is only a choice be- 
tween evils. If to fill the panel with bystanders means to fill it with men stand- 
ing by for the purpose of being called, we are ready for a law which will compel 
the sheriff to seek talesmen beyond the limits of the court house. Any change, 
the aim of which is to compel the selection of men of ordinary intelligence and 
approved integrity as jurors, will be acceptable to the people. But now that 
all men read the news, the information thus acquired should no longer render 
them incompetent for jury service. It is a premium upon ignorance which we 
cannot afford to pay. Instead of summoning a juryman for a whole term wc 
should limit his service to one or two weeks. This would lighten the burden 
without impairing the principle. To that argument, however, which assumes 


that business men can afford no time for jury service there can be but one answer, 
No government can long endure unless its citizens are willing to make some 
sacrifice for its existence. 

In this, our land, we are called upon to give but little in return for the ad- 
vantages which we receive. Shall we give that little grudgingly? Our defini- 
tion of patriotism is often too narrow. 

Shall the lover of his country measure his loyalty only by his service as 
a soldier? No! Patriotism calls for the faithful and conscientious performance 
of all of the duties of citizenship, in small matters as well as great, at home as 
well as upon the tented field. 

There is no more menacing feature in these modern times than the disin- 
clination of what are called the better classes to assume the burdens of citizen- 
ship. If we desire to preserve to future generations the purity of our courts 
and the freedom of our people, we must lose no opportunity to impress upon 
our citizens the fact that above all pleasure, above all convenience, above all 
business, they must place their duty to their government; for a good government 
doubles every joy and a bad government multiplies every sorrow. Times change 
but principles endure. The jury has protected us from the abuse of power. 

While human government exists the tendency to abuse power will remain. 
This system, coming down from former generations crowned with the honors 
of age, is today and for the future our hope. 

Let us correct its defects with kindly hands, let us purge it of its imperfec- 
tions and it will be, as in the past, the bulwark of our liberties. 

Besides the work which I have mentioned, Mr. Bryan spoke briefly 
upon several other questions, namely, in favor of the election of United 
States Senators by a direct vote of the people, and in favor of the anti- 
option bill; in opposition to the railroad pooling bill and against the 
extension of the Pacific liens. 

In the Fifty-Third Congress, the Democrats adopted a rule which 
was somewhat similar to the one in force under Speaker Reed, pro- 
viding for the counting of a quorum. Mr. Bryan opposed this rule 
and I quote the reasons which he then gave in support of his position. 

Counting a Quorum* 

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the gentleman from Maine for this courtesy. 
The question upon which we are called to act is one of a great deal more 
importance than some members seem to think, and the objection which is 
made to the rule by some of us, who have not been able to favor it, is based 
upon reasons far more weighty than gentlemen have assumed. 

The constitution of the State of Nebraska, which I have the honor in 
part to represent, contains this provfsion: 

No bill shall be passed unless by assent of a majority of all the members 
elected to each House of the Legislature, and the question upon the final 
passage shall be taken immediately upon its last reading, and the yeas and 
nays shall be entered upon the journal. 


The constitutions of a majority of the States of the Union, among them 
the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and I might 
name them all if time permitted, provide the same, the object being to prevent 
less than one half of all the members elected to the Legislature from passing laws. 
It is only by the concurrence of a majority of the members that we can know 
that the majority of the people desire the law. The Constitution of the United 
States does not contain a similar provision; and there is no question, since 
the decision of the Supreme Court, that it is within the power of this House 
to declare by rule in what manner a quorum may be ascertained. It can be 
done in the manner provided in this rule, or it can be done by the call of the 
yeas and nays, as it has been done for a hundred years. Now, the question 
with me is this: Which is the safer plan? According to the rule which has 
been in vogue a hundred years, the minority has the safeguard which is ex- 
pressly secured in the constitutions of a majority of the States; according to the 
old rule the minority, by refusing to vote, can compel the concurrence of a 
majority before a law is passed. 

Now, I believe that is a wise provision. I do not se^ why it is wiser in a 
State than in Congress; I do not know why it is necessary that the members 
of the Legislature in my State, or in New York, should be compelled to vote 
yea or nay when a bill shall pass, and that a majority shall concur, unless the 
same reasons apply in this body. 

In the spring of 1894, Mr. Bryan announced that he would not be 
a candidate for re-election to Congress, and later decided to stand as 
a candidate for the United States Senate. He was nominated for that 
office by the unanimous vote of the Democratic State Convention. 
While the Republicans made no nomination, it seemed certain that Mr. 
Thurston would be their candidate and the Democratic committee ac- 
cordingly issued a challenge to him for a series of debates. The Re- 
publicans were also invited to arrange a debate between Mr. McKinley 
and Mr. Bryan, Mr. McKinley having at that time an appointment to 
speak in Nebraska. The latter invitation was declined, but two meet- 
ings were arranged with Mr. Thurston. These • were the largest 
political gatherings ever held in the State and were as gratifying to the 
friends of Mr. Bryan as his previous debates. During the campaign, 
Mr. Bryan made a canvass of the State, speaking four or five hours 
each day, and sometimes riding thirty miles over rough roads between 
speeches. At the election, Nebraska shared in the general landslide; 
the Republicans had a large majority in the Legislature and elected 
Mr. Thurston. 

This defeat was a disappointment, but it did not discourage Mr. 
Bryan, as is evident from an address to his supporters, extracts from 
which follow: 

Biography. s$ 

Letter to Friendt after Senatorial Defeat 

The Legislature U Republican, and a Republican Senator will now be 
elected to represent Nebraska. This may be mortifying to the numerous 
chairmen who have introduced me to audiences as "the next Senator from Ne- 
braska," but it illustrates the uncertainty of prophecies. 

I appreciate more than words can express the cordial good will and the 
loyal support of the friends to whom I am indebted for the political honors 
which I have received. I am especially grateful to those who bear without 
humiliation the name of the common people, for they have been my friends 
when others have deserted me. 1 appreciate also the kind words of many who 
have been restrained by party ties from giving me their votes. I have been a 
hired man for four years, and, now that the campaign is closed, I may be par- 
doned for saying that as a public servant I have performed my duty to the 
best of my ability, and am not ashamed of the record made. 

I stepped from private life into national politics at the bidding of my 
countrymen; at their bidding I again take my place in the ranks and resume 
without sorrow the work from which they called me. It is the glory of our 
institutions that public officials exercise authority by the consent of the gov- 
erned rather than by divine or hereditary right. Paraphrasing the language of 
Job, each public servant can say of departing honors: "The people gave and 
the people have taken away, blessed be the name of the people." 

Speaking of my own experience in politics, I may again borrow an idea 
from the great sufferer and say: "What, shall we receive good at the hands 
of the people, and shall we not receive evil?" I have received good even be- 
yond my deserts, and I accept defeat without complaint. I ask my friends not 

to cherish resentment against any one who may have contributed to the result. 

♦ ♦###♦ 4( 

The friends of these reforms have fought a good fight; they have kept the 
faith, and they will not have finished their course until the reforms are accom- 
plished. Let us be grateful for the progress made, and "with malice toward 
none and charity for all" begin the work of the next campaign. 

Mr. Bryan received the votes of all the Democrats and of nearly 
half of the Populist members. It might be suggested here that while 
Mr. Bryan had never received a nomination from the Populist party, he 
had been, since 1892, materially aided by individual members of that 
organization. In Nebraska, the Democratic party has been in the 
minority, and as there are several points of agreement between it and 
the Populist party, Mr. Bryan advocated co-operation between the two. 
In the spring of 1893, he received the support of a majority of the 
Democratic members of the Legislature, but, when it became evident 
that no Democrat could be elected, he assisted in the election of Sen- 
ator Allen, a Populist. Again, in 1894, in the Democratic State Conven- 
tion, he aided in securing the nomination of a portion of the Populist 
ticket, including Mr. Holcomb, Populist candidate for Governor. The 
cordial relations which existed between the Democrats and Populists 


in Nebraska were a potent influence in securing his nomination at 

On September ist, 1894, Mr. Bryan became chief of the editorial 
staff of the Omaha World-Herald, and from that date until the last na- 
tional convention gave a portion of his time to this work. This posi- 
tion enabled him daily to reach a large number of people in the discus- 
sion of public questions and also added considerably to his income. 
While the contract fixed a certain amount of editorial matter as a 
minimum, his interest in the work was such that he generally exceeded 
rather than fell below the required space. 

After the adjournment of Congress, Mr. Bryan, on his way home, 
lectured at Cincinnati, Nashville, Tenn., Little Rock, Ark., and at 
several points in Missouri, arriving in Lincoln March 19, his thirty- 
fifth birthday. The Jefferson Club tendered him a reception and an 
opera house packed with an appreciative audience rendered this a very 
gratifying occasion to Mr. Bryan. As he was no longer in public life, 
and could show no favors in return, the disinterested friendship shown 
will always be remembered with pleasure. He chose as his theme, 
'Thomas Jefferson still lives," and, after reviewing the work of the 
Fifty-third Congress, discussed at length the principles of his patron 
saint. His admiration for the Sage of Monticello is so well known 
that I quote a tribute which he once paid him: 

Let us then, with the courage of Andrew Jackson, apply to present condi- 
tions the principles taught by Thomas Jefferson — Thomas Jefferson, the great- 
est constructive statesman whom the world has ever known; the grandest war- 
rior who ever battled for human liberty! He quarried from the mountain of 
eternal truth the four pillars, upon whose strength all popular government 
must rest. In the Declaration of American Independence he proclaimed the 
principles with which there is, without which there cannot be "a government 
of the people, by the people, and for the people." When he declared that "all 
men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
ness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, 
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," he declared all 
that lies between the Alpha and Omega of Democracy. 

Alexander "wept for other worlds to conquer" after he had carried his 
victorious banner throughout the then known world; Napoleon "rearranged 
the map of Europe with his sword" amid the lamentations of those by whose blood 
he was exalted; but when these and other military heroes are forgotten and 
iheir achievements disappear in the cycle's sweep of years, children will still 
lisp the name of Jefferson, and freemen will ascribe due praise to him who filled 
the kneeling subject's heart with hope and bade him stand erect — a sovereign 
among his peers. 



Mr. Bryan intended to resume the practice of law and re-open his 
office. At this time, however, the contest for supremacy in the Demo- 
cratic party had begun in earnest and calls for speeches were so nu- 
merous and so urgent that it seemed best to devote his time to lecturing 
and to the public discussion of the money question. In view of the 
suggestions which have been made that Mr. Bryan was in the pay of 
the silver league, I will be pardoned for speaking of the earnings during 
these months. His editorial salary formed the basis of his income. 
When lecturing before Chautauquas and similar societies he was paid 
as other lecturers. At meetings where no admission was charged he 
sometimes received compensation and at other times received nothing. 
Many of the free speeches were made en route to lecture engagements, 
and his compensation ranged from traveling expenses to one hun- 
dred dollars. Only upon two or three occasions did he receive more 
than this. Never at any time was he under the direction of, or in the 
pay of, any silver league or association of persons pecuniarily interested 
in silver. During the interim between the adjournment of Congress 
and the Chicago convention he spoke in all the States of the West and 
South, and became acquainted with those most prominently connected 
with the silver cause. 

I have briefly outlined the life and political career of Mr. Bryan. 
Perhaps it may please the reader to add a few words concerning his 
home life. 

Our children are three. Ruth Baird is now eleven; William Jen- 
nings, Jr., is seven and a half, and Grace Dexter will soon be six. The 
older girl is said to be very much like her mother; the younger strongly 
resembles her father; and the son seems a composite photograph of 
both parents. Though for several years past, Mr. Bryan's work has 
often called him from home, he arranges to return for the Sabbath 
whenever possible. 

During his service in Congress, the family spent three of the five 
sessions with him in Washington. We found a very comfortable 
and pleasant home at 131 B street, S. E., with Mr. C. T. Bride, 
and here the four years were spent. No member can live within 
his salary and make much of social life. We did little visiting, but were 
often found at lectures and heard many actors of note. The National Li- 
brary was an endless source of pleasure and many rare books were read 
during those years. Though an advocate of an eight hour day, Mr. 
Bryan has, during the last thirteen years, averaged nearly twelve hours 
a day at professional and literary work. 


He spoke on several occasions outside of Congress. The two most 
important speeches delivered were, the one at Tammany Hall, July 4, 
1892, the other, at the National Cemetery at Arlington, May 30, 1894. 
1 insert the latter. The scene was impressive and the audience repre- 
sentative. President Cleveland and four of his cabinet were in attend- 

BAemofial Day Address. 

Arlington Cemetery, Washington, D. C, May 30, 1894. 

With flowers in our hands and sadness in our hearts we stand amid the 
tombs where the nation's dead are sleeping. It is appropriate that the Chief 
Executive is here, accompanied by his Cabinet; it is appropriate that the 
soldier's widow is here, and the soldier's son; it is appropriate that here are 
assembled, in numbers growing less each year, the scarred survivors. Federal and 
Confederate, of our last great war; it is appropriate, also, that these exercises 
in honor of comrades dead should be conducted by comrades still surviving. 
All too soon the day will come when these graves must be decorated by hands 
unused to implements of war, and when these speeches must be made by lips 
that never answered to a roll call. 

We, who are of the aftermath, cannot look upon the flag with the same 
emotions that thrill you who have followed it as your pillar of cloud by day 
and your pillar of fire by night, nor can we appreciate it as you can who have 
seen it waving in front of reinforcements when succor meant escape from 
death; neither can we, standing by these blossom-covered mounds, feel as you 
have often felt when far away from home and on hostile soil you have laid 
your companions to rest; but from a new generation we can bring you the 
welcome assurance that the commemoration of this day will not depart with 
you. We may neglect the places where the nation's greatest victories have been 
won, but we cannot forget the Arlingtons which the nation has consecrated 
with its tears. 

To ourselves as well as to the dead we owe the duty which we discharge 
here, for monuments and memorial days declare the patriotism of the living 
no less than the virtues of those whom they commemorate. 

We would be blind indeed to our own interests and to the welfare of 
posterity if we were deaf to the just demands of the soldier and his dependents. 
We are grateful for the services rendered by our defenders, whether illustrious 
or nameless, and yet a nation's gratitude is not entirely unselfish, since by our 
regard for the dead we add to the security of the living; by our remembrance 
of those who have suffered we give inspiration to those upon whose valor we 
must hereafter rely, and prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifices which have 
been made and which may be again required. 

The essence of patriotism lies in a willingness to sacrifice for one's coun- 
try, just as true greatness finds expression, not in blessings enjoyed, but in good 
bestowed. Read the words inscribed on the monuments reared by loving 
hands to the heroes of the past; they do not speak of wealth inherited, or 
honors bought or of hours in leisure spent, but of service done. Twenty 
years, forty years, a life or life's most precious blood he yielded up for the 


welfare of his fellows — ^this is the simple story which proves that it is now, 
and ever has been, more blessed to give than to receive. 

The officer was a patriot when he gave his ability to his country and 
risked his name and fame upon the fortunes of war; the private soldier was a 
patriot when he took his place in the ranks and offered his body as a bulwark 
to protect the flag; the wife was a patriot when she bade her husband farewell 
and gathered about her the little brood over which she must exercise both a 
mother's and a father's care; and, if there can be degrees in patriotism, the 
mother stood first among the patriots when she gave to the nation her sons, 
the divinely appointed support of her declining years, and as she brushed the 
tears away thanked God that he had given her the strength to rear strong and 
courageous sons for the battlefield. 

To us who were bom too late to prove upon the battlefield our courage 
and our loyalty it is gratifying to know that opportunity will not be wanting 
to show our love of country. In a nation like ours, where the Government is 
founded upon the principle of equality and derives its just powers from the 
consent of the governed; in a land like ours, I say, where every citizen is a 
sovereign and where no one cares to wear a crown, every year presents a battle- 
field and every day brings forth occasion for the display of patriotism. 

And on this memorial day we shall fall short of our duty if we 

content ourselves with praising the dead or complimenting the living and fail 

to make preparations for those responsibilities which present times and present 

conditions impose upon us. We can find instruction in that incomparable 

address delivered by Abraham Lincoln on the battlefield of Gettysburg. It 

should be read as a part of the exercises of this day on each returning year as 

the Declaration of Independence is read on the Fourth of July. Let me quote 

from it, for its truths, like all truths, are applicable in all times and climes: 

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those 
who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper 
that we should do this. But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, 
we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have 
consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long 
remember, what we say here, but it cannot forget what they did here. It is for us. the 
living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here 
have thus far so nobly advanced. 

"The Unfinished Work." Yes, every generation leaves to its successor 

an unfinished work. The work of society, the work of human progress, the 

work of civilization is never completed. We build upon the foundation which 

we find already laid and those who follow us take up the work where we leave 

off. Those who fought and fell thirty years ago did nobly advance the work 

in their day, for they led the nation up to higher grounds. Theirs was the 

greatest triumph in all history. Other armies have been inspired by love of 

conquest or have fought to repel a foreign enemy, but our armies held 

within the Union brethren who now rejoice at their own defeat and glory in 

the preservation of the nation which they once sought to dismember. No 

greater victory can be won by citizens or soldiers than to transform temporary 

foes into permanent friends. But let me quote again: 

It is rather Yor us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that 
from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the 
last full measure of deyotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have 


died in vain; that this nation, under God. shall have a new birth of freedom and that 
government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth. 

Aye, let us here dedicate ourselves anew to this unfinished work which 
requires of each generation constant sacrifice and unceasing care. Pericles, in 
speaking of those who fell at Salamis, explained the loyalty of his country- 
men when he said: 

It was for such a country, then, that these men, nobly resolving not to have it taken 
from them, fell fighting and every one of their survivors may well be willing to suffer in 
its behalf. 

The strength of a nation does not lie in forts, nor in navies, nor yet in 
great standing armies, but in happy and contented citizens, who are ever ready 
to protect for themselves and to preserve for posterity the blessings which they 
enjoy. It is for us of this generation to so perform the duties of citizenship 
that a "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not 
perish from the earth." 

As a conclusion for this sketch, I have asked the publishers to give 
a picture of our library, the place where Mr. Bryan spends most of 
his time when at home and where, as he has often said, his happiest 
hours are passed. Our collection of books is more complete along the 
lines of economic subjects and in the works and lives of public men. 
The orations of Demosthenes and the writings of Jefferson afford him 
the greatest pleasure. 

To give an estimate of his character or of the mental endowments 
which he may possess, would be beyond the scope of this article. I may 
be justified, however, in saying that his life has been one of earnest pur- 
pose, with that sort of genius which has been called "a capacity for hard 


Mary Baird Bryaiu 

(Mary Baird Bryan, only child of John and Lovina Baird, the 

father a prosperous merchant of Perry, Illinois, was born June 17, 

1 86 1. After a course in the public schools she attended Monticello 

Seminary, at Godfrey, Illinois, for one year, and the Presbyterian 

Academy at Jacksonville, Illinois, for two years, graduating from the 

latter institution with first honors in June, 1881. She has continued 

her studies since graduation, giving special attention to German. After 

her marriage, in 1884, she read law, with her husband as instructor, 

taking the course prescribed in the Union College of Law (Chicago). 

She was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Nebraska in 

November, 1888. This course of study was taken up, not with a view 

to entering the practice, but in order to put herself in closer touch with 

her husband, to whom she has been a real helpmeet in every sense of 

the term. He acknowledges his indebtedness to her for constant and 

valuable assistance in his work. She is devoted to her home, and to 

her children has been both mother and companion. — The Publishers.) 

The First Battle 




ON the 30th day of July, 1890, I was nominated for Congress in 
the First Nebraska District by the Democratic party. The 
platform adopted by the nominating Convention contained the 
following silver plank : 

We demand the free coinage of silver on equal terms with gold and de- 
nounce the eflFort of the Republican party to serve the interests of Wall street 
as against the rights of the people. 

I wrote the plank and it expressed my views at that time. The Demo- 
cratic party in Congress had, only a short time before the holding of our 
Convention, voted strongly in favor of free coinage and my opponent, 
Hon. W. J. Connell, had voted with the Democrats. Since we agreed 
upon the silver question, we confined our campaign almost entirely to 
the discussion of the McKinley tariff act, for which he had voted 
When I spoke upon the silver question at all it was only briefly and the 
argument made was, in substance, that we needed more money 
rather than less and that the use of both metals for standard money 
would give more money than the use of one alone. 

After the election I determined to make a thorough study of the 
money question. The first thing read was a little pamphlet issued 
by the Bimetallic League and entitled '^Silver in the. Fifty-first 
Congress." Professor Laughlin's book on bimetallism was next read 
and afterwards, the "Report of the Royal Commission of England" and 
the works of Jevons, Bonamy Price, Cernuschi, De Laveleye, Cheve- 
Her, Jacobs and others. By this time the agitation upon the question 
had reached a point where people were dividing upon the subject and I 
was pained to find my opinion running contrary to the opinions of 
many with whom I have been politically intimate, but the more I 
investigated the question the deeper my convictions became. 

In April, 1891, I attended the Western States' Commercial Con- 
gress in session at Kansas City, Mo., and there voted for free coinage 



and also introduced, and secured the adoption of, the following decla- 
ration : 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this congress that all legal tender money 
of the United States should be made a full legal tender for all debts, public 
and private, any condition in the contract to the contrary notwithstanding; 
provided that this should not affect contracts already in existence. 

On the 17th of September, 1891,1 attended the Democratic State Con- 
vention held at Grand Island, Nebraska, and, as a member of the com- 
mittee on resolutions, secured the adoption of the following plank: 

We favor the free coinage of silver and demand that it shall be made a full 
legal tender for all debts, public and private; and we denounce as unjust and dis- 
honest the provisions of the law recently enacted allowing parties to stipulate 
against payment in silver and silver certificates, thus setting up one standard for 
the rich man and another for the poor man. 

The latter part of the plank reproduced the idea set forth in the 
resolution adopted by the Western States' Commercial Congress. 

In the Spring of 1892 I attended the Democratic State Convention 
which was held at Omaha on April 14th. This Convention was called 
to select delegates to the Democratic National Convention. There was 
a strong sentiment in favor of Mr. Cleveland's renomination and the 
Convention was organized against silver but Mr. Qeveland's friends, 
knowing his position, were satisfied to avoid the question. I was 
made a member of the Resolutions Committee by a vote of the Con- 
vention and presented the following minority report: 

We declare ourselves in favor of the free coinage of silver. 

We had a warm contest over this plank, the vote when finally 
taken being so close that both sides claimed a majority and the roll 
was called a second time. On the second roll call the silver plank 
was declared lost but we have since had reason to believe that it 
was carried by a small majority. This Convention may be considered 
the beginning of the contest in Nebraska between the two wings of the 
Democratic party. I was at that time opposed to Mr. Qeveland's re- 
nomination because of his attitude on the money question and favored 
the nomination of Governor Boies, of Iowa, who was, in my judgment, 
nearest to our position. 

I was renominated for Congress on the day before the meeting of 
the National Convention. My platform declared for free coinage and 
the question was made a special feature in the Congressional campaign. 
Just before the adjournment of the first session of the Fifty-second 
Congress, my attention was called to a bill introduced by Senator Sher- 
man on the 14th day of July, 1892. The bill will be found in my third 
speech against unconstitutional repeal. 

•aJ-^^.Q^- ^^■'^ 


As soon as I saw this bill I concluded that the next move of the 
opponents of free coinage would be to secure the unconditional repeal 
of the Sherman law, thus leaving no provision for an increase in silver 
coinage. Taking a copy of the bill with me throughout my District I 
pointed out the probable attempt which would be made and pledged 
myself to resist it to the extent of my ability. My fears proved well 
founded, since it was only a little more than a year afterward that Mr. 
Wilson introduced the Administration bill for unconditional repeal at 
the opening of the extraordinary session of the Fifty-third Congress. 
His bill will also be found in the speech above referred to. 

From a comparison of these two bills it is evident that they come 
from the same source; they were identical in purpose and almost 
identical in language. 

I did not go out of my District during the campaign of 1892 and 
took no further part in the discussion of the silver question until the 
matter came up in the House of Representatives during the closing 
days of the second session of the Fifty-second Congress. 




N February 9th, 1893, the House having under consideration the 
following resolution: 

ResolTod, That Immediately upon the mdopUon of this roBoluUon the House pro- 
ceed to consider H. R. 10143, "A bill to increase the circulation ot naUonal banks and 
for other purposes/' and if such bill shall not be disposed of on said day, then the con- 
tlderaUon thereof shall be conUnued during the next legislaUye day. 

I made my first speech against unconditional repeal. It is given 


First Speech Against UncoiidftioQal Repeal* 

Mr. Speaker: We oppose the consideration of this bill because we op- 
pose the bill, and we oppose the cloture which is asked in order to secure its 
passage, because the Democratic party dare not go before the people and tell 
them they refused cloture for free coinage — which is consistent with the his- 
tory of the party; for the tariff bills which we promised to pass, and for the 
bill for the election of United States Senators by the people, and only yielded 
to it at the dictation of the moneyed institutions of this country and those 
who want to appreciate the value of a dollar. 

I call attention to the fact that there is not in this bill a single line or 
sentence which is not opposed to the whole history of the Democratic party. 
We have opposed the principle of the national bank on all occasions, and yet 
you give them by this bill an increased currency of $15,000,000. You have 
pledged the party to reduce the taxation upon the people, and yet, before you 
attempt to lighten this burden, you seek to take off one-half million of dollars 
annually from the national banks of the country; and even after declaring in 
your national platform that the Sherman act was a "cowardly makeshift," you 
attempt to take away the "makeshift" before you give us the real thing for 
which the makeshift was substituted. 

What is a makeshift? It is a temporary expedient And yet you tell us 
you will take away our temporary expedient before you give us the permanent 
good. You tell a man who is fighting with a club that it is a miserable make- 
shift and that he ought to have a repeating rifie; and yet you tell him to throw 
away his club and wait until his enemy gives him the rifie. We do not like 
the present law. It did not come from us. The Sherman law is the child of 
the opponents of free coinage. But they have given it to us, and we will hold 
it as a hostage until they return to us our own child, "the gold and silver coin- 
age of the Constitution." They kidnaped it twenty years ago, and we shall hold 
their child, ugly and deformed as it is, until they bring ours back or give us 
something better than the makeshift which we now have. 

Mr. Speaker, consider the eflFect of this bill. It means that by suspending 
the purchase of silver we will throw 54,000,000 ounces on the market annually 



and reduce the price of silver bullion. It means that we will widen the differ- 
ence between the coinage and bullion value of silver, and raise a greater ob* 
stacle in the way of bimetallism. It means to increase by billions of dollars 
the debts of our people. It means a reduction in the price of our wheat and 
our cotton. You have garbled the platform of the Democratic party. You 
have taken up one clause of it and refuse to give us a fulfillment of the other 
and more important clause, which demands that gold and silver shall be coined 
on equal terms without charge for mintage. 

Mr. Speaker, this cannot be done. A man who murders another short- 
ens by a few brief years the life of a human being; but he who votes to in- 
crease the burden of debts upon the people of the United States assumes a graver 
responsibility. If we who represent them consent to rob our people, the cot- 
ton-growers of the South and the wheat-growers of the West, we will be crim- 
inals whose guilt cannot be measured by words, for we will bring distress and 
disaster to our people. In many cases such a vote would simply be a sum- 
mons to the sheriff to take possession of their property. 

This was the first effort made to secure unconditional repeal, and 
there was coupled with it a proposition to allow banks to issue notes 
up to the par value of their bonds and to reduce the tax on circula- 
tion. It is significant that in recent years the effort to degrade silver 
has gone hand in hand with the effort to increase the control of national 
banks over the issue of paper money. 

A little later in the same month, February 27th, an effort was made 
to secure authority for the issue of short time, low rate bonds. This I 
believed to be a part of the general plan to secure a legislative declara- 
tion favorable to gold and I therefore opposed the measure. 

From what had already taken place I felt sure that the great contest 
over the money question was approaching and after the adjournment of 
Congress devoted myself to preparation for it. I was not surprised, 
therefore, when the President called Congress together in extraordinary 
session on the 7th day of August, 1893. Mr. Wilson of West Virginia, 
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, introduced the Admin- 
istration measure, to which I have heretofore referred, and the g^eat 
parliamentary struggle began. I then asserted, and still believe, that 
the debate over the repeal bill was the most important economic dis- 
cussion which ever took place in our Congress. On the i6th day of 
August, 1893, near the close of the debate, I delivered the following 
argument in opposition to unconditional repeal. 

Prindpal Speech Against Unconditional RepeaL 

The House having under conBlderatlon the bill (H. R. 1) to repeal the purchailng 
elaiue of the Sherman act. 

Mr. Speaker: I shall accomplish my full purpose if I am able to impress 
upon the members of the House the far-reaching consequences which 


may follow our action and quicken their appreciation of the grave re- 
sponsibility which presses upon us. Historians tell us that the victory of 
Charles Martel at Tours determined the history of all Europe for centuries. It 
was a contest "between the Crescent and the Cross.'* and when, on that fateful 
day, the Prankish prince drove back the followers of Abderrahman he rescued 
the West from "the all-destroying grasp of Islam," and saved to Europe its 
Christian civilization. A greater than Tours is here! In my humble judgment 
the vote of tliis House on the subject under consideration may bring to the 
people of the West and South, to the people of the United States, and to all man- 
kind, weal or woe beyond the power of language to describe or imagination 
to conceive. 

In the princely palace and in the humblest hamlet; by the financier and by 
the poorest toiler; here, in Europe and everywhere, the proceedings of this 
Congress, upon this problem will be read and studied; and as our actions bless 
or blight we shall be commended or condemned. The President of the 
United States, in the discharge of his duty as he sees it, has sent to Congress a 
message calling attention to the present financial situation, and recommending 
the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law as the only means of securing 
immediate relief. Some outside of this hall have insisted that the President's 
recommendation imposes upon Democratic members an obligation, as it were, 
to carry out his wishes, and over-zealous friends have even suggested that 
opposition to his views might subject the hardy dissenter to administrative dis- 
pleasure. They do the President great injustice who presume that he would 
forget for a moment the independence of the two branches of Congress. He 
would not be worthy of our admiration or even respect if he demanded a hom- 
age which would violate the primary principles of free representative govern- 

Let his own language rebuke those who would disregard their pledges to 
their own people in order to display a false fealty. In the message which he 
sent to Congress in December, 1885, he said, in words which may well be our 
guide in this great crisis: "The zealous watchfulness of our constituencies, 
great and small, supplements their suffrages, and before the tribunal they estab- 
lish every public servant should be judged." Among the many grand truths 
expressed felicitously by the President during his public career none show a 
truer conception of official duty or describe with more clearness the body from 
which the member receives his authority and to which he owes his responsi- 

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is before the tribunal established by our constituencies, 
and before that tribunal only that we must appear for judgment upon our 
actions here. When we each accepted a commission from 180,000 people we 
pledged ourselves to protect their rights from invasion and to reflect their 
wishes to the best of our ability, and we must stand defenseless before the 
bar if our only excuse is "he recommended it." And remember, sir, that these 
constituencies include not bankers, brokers, and boards of trade only, but 
embrace people in every station and condition of life; and in that great court 
from whose decision there is no appeal every voter has an equal voice. That 
the Democratic party understands the duty of the Representative, is evident 
from the fact that it found it necessary to nonconcur in a similar recommenda- 
tion made by the President in 1885. 


In the message which he sent to the Forty-ninth Congress, at the beginning 
of the first session, we find these words: 

Prosperity hesitates upon our threshold because of the dangers and uncertainties 
surrounding this question. Capital timidly shrinks from trade, and Inyestors are unwilling 
to take the chance of the questionable shape in which their money will be returned to 
them, while enterprise halts at a risk against which care and sagacious management do 
not protect. 

As a necessary consequence, labor lacks employment, and suffering and distress 
are Tisited upon a portion of our fellow-citizens especially entitled to the careful con- 
sideration of those charged with the duties of legislation. No interest appeals to us so 
strongly for a safe and stable currency as the vast army of the unemployed. I recom- 
mend the suspension of the compulsory coinage of silver dollars, directed by the law passed. 
In February, 1878. 

It will be seen that the same forces were at work then as now; the same 
apprehensions existed as now; the same pressure was brought from the same 
sources in favor of the debasement of silver; but the members of Congress, 
refusing to take counsel of their fears, stood by the record of both great parties 
and by the Nation's history and retained the coinage of silver as then provided 
for. Let it be said to the credit of the Democratic party that in the House 
only thirty-three of its members voted to suspend the Bland law, while 130 are 
recorded against suspension. Time has proved that the members, reflecting the 
opinions of their people, were wiser than the Executive, and he is doubtless 
grateful today that they did not follow his suggestion. 

I have read with care the message sent to us last week, and have considered 
it in the light of every reasonable construction of which it is capable. If I am 
able to understand its language it points to the burial of silver, with no promise 
of resurrection. Its reasoning is in the direction of a single standard. It leads 
irresistibly to universal gold monometallism — to a realm over whose door is 
written: "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here!" Before that door I stop, 
appalled. Have gentlemen considered the effect of a single gold standard 
universally adopted? Let us not deceive ourselves with the hope that wc can 
discard silver for gold, and that other nations will take it up and keep it as a 
part of the world's currency. When all the silver available for coinage could 
gain admission to some mints and all the gold available for coinage would find 
a place for mintage, and some nation like France maintained the parity by 
means of bimetallism it was of comparatively little importance whether a par- 
ticular nation used silver, or gold, or both. 

Exchange did not fluctuate and trade could be carried on without incon- 
venience. But times have changed. One nation after another has closed its 
mints to silver until the white metal has, in European countries, been made an 
outcast by legislation and has shown a bullion value diflferent from its coinage 
value. India, at last, guided by the misrepresentations of the metropolitan 
press, which proclaimed as certain what was never probable, has suspended 
free coinage, fearing that this country would stop the purchase of silver. If 
the United States, the greatest silver producing nation, which now utilizes 
more than one-third of the total annual product of the world, closes its mint 
to the coinage of silver, what assurance have we that it can retain its place as 
primary money in the commercial world? 

Is it not more reasonable to suppose that a further fall in the bullion 
value of silver will be followed by a demand for a limitation of the legal tender 


qualities of the silver already in existence? That is already being urged by 
some. Is it not reasonable to suppose that our hostile action will lead to hostile 
action on the part of other nations? Every country must have money for its 
people, and if silver is abandoned and gold substituted it must be drawn 
from the world's already scanty supply. We hear much about a "stable 
currency" and an "honest dollar." It is a significant fact that those who 
have spoken in favor of unconditional repeal have for the most part avoided 
a discussion of the effect of an appreciating standard. They take it for 
granted that a gold standard is not only an honest standard, but the only 
stable standard. I denounce that child of ignorance and avarice, the gold dol- 
lar under a universal gold standard, as the most dishonest dollar which we 
could employ. 

I stand upon the authority of every intelligent writer upon political econ- 
omy when I assert that there is not and never has been an honest dollar. An 
honest dollar is a dollar absolutely stable in relation to all other things. 
Laughlin, in his woric on Bimetallism, says: 

Monometalllsta do notn-as is often said— believe that gold remaini absolutely stable 
in value. They hold that there is no such thing as a "standard of value" for future pay- 
ments in either gold or silver which remains absolutely invariable. 

He even suggests a multiple standard for long-time contracts. I quote his 


As regards National debts, it is distinctly averred that neither gold nor silver 
forms a just measure of deferred payments, and that if Justice in long contracts is sought 
for, we should not seek it by the doubful and untried expedient of international bimetal- 
lism, but by the clear and certain method of a multiple standard, a unit based upon the 
selling prices of a number of articles of general consumption. A long-time contract 
would thereby be paid at its maturity by the same purchasing power as was given in the 

Jevons, one of the most generally accepted of the writers in favor of a 
gold standard, admits the instability of a single standard, and in language very 
similar to that aS^ove quoted suggests the multiple standard as the most equita- 
ble if practicable. Chevalier, who wrote a book in 1858 to show the injustice 
of allowing a debtor to pay his debts in a cheap gold dollar, recognized the 
same fact, and said: 

If the value of the metal declined, the creditor would suffer a lost upon the quantity 
he had received, if, on the contrary, it rose, the debtor would have to pay more than 
he calculated upon. 

I am on sound and scientific ground, therefore, when I say that a dollar 
approaches honesty as its purchasing power approaches stability. If I borrow 
a thousand dollars today and next year pay the debt with a thousand dollars which 
will secure exactly as much of all things desirable as the one thousand which 
I borrowed, I have paid in honest dollars. If the money has increased or 
decreased in purchasing power, I have satisfied my debt with dishonest dollars. 
While the Government can say that a given weight of gold or silver shall con- 
stitute a dollar, and invest that dollar with legal-tender qualities, it cannot fix 
the purchasing power of the dollar. That must depend upon the law of supply 
and demand, and it may be well to suggest that this Government never tried to 
fix the exchangeable value of a dollar until it began to limit the number of 
dollars coined. 


If the number of dollars increases more rapidly than the need for dol- 
lars—as it did after the gold discoveries of 1849 — the exchangeable value of each 
dollar will fall and prices rise. If the demand for dollars increases faster than 
the number of dollars — ^as it did after 1800— -the price of each dollar will rise and 
prices generally will fall. The relative value of the dollar may be changed 
by natural causes or by legislation. An increased supply — the demand remain- 
ing the same — or a decreased demand — the supply remaining the same — will 
reduce the exchangeable value of each dollar. Natural causes may act on both 
supply and demand; as, for instance, by increasing the product from the mines 
or by increasing the amount consumed in the arts. Legislation acts directly 
on the demand, and thus affects the price, since the demand is one of the 
factors in fixing the price. 

If by legislative action the demand for silver is destroyed and the demand 
for gold is increased by making it the only standard, the exchangeable value 
of each unit of that standard, or dollar, as we call it, will be increased. If the 
exchangeable value of the dollar is increased by legislation the debt of the 
debtor is increased, to his injury and to the advantage of the creditor. And 
let me suggest here, in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Mc- 
Call), who said that the money loaner was entitled to the advantages derived 
from improved machinery and inventive genius, that he is mistaken. The labor- 
ing man and the producer are entitled to these benefits, and the money loaner, 
by every law of justice, ought to be content with a dollar equal in purchasing 
power to the dollar which he loaned, and any one desiring more than that 
desires a dishonest dollar, it matters not what name he may give to it. Take an 
illustration: John Doe, of Nebraska, has a farm worth $2,000 and mortgages 
it to Richard Roe, of Massachusetts, for $1,000. Suppose the value of the mone- 
tary unit is increased by legislation which creates a greater demand for gold. 
The debt is increased. If the increase amounts to 100 per cent, the Nebraska 
farmer finds that the prices of his products have fallen one-half and his land 
loses one-half its value, unless the price is maintained by the increased popu- 
lation incident to a new country. 

The mortgage remains nominally the same, though the debt has actually 
become twice as great. Will he be deceived by the cry of "honest dollar?" 
If he should loan a Nebraska neighbor a hog weighing 100 pounds and the 
next spring demand in return a hog weighing 200 pounds he would be called 
dishonest, even though he contended that he was only demanding one hog — 
just the number he loaned. Society has become accustomed to some very 
nice distinctions. The poor man is called a socialist if he believes that the 
wealth of the rich should be divided among the poor, but the rich man is 
called a financier if he devises a plan by which the pittance of the poor can 
be converted to his use. 

The poor man who takes property by force is called a thief, but the creditor 
who can by legislation make a debtor pay a dollar twice as large as he bor- 
rowed is lauded as the friend of a sound currency. The man who wants the 
people to destroy the Government is an anarchist, but the man who wants the 
Government to destroy the people is a patriot. 

The great desire now seems to be to restore confidence, and some have 
an idea that the only way to restore confidence is to coax the money loaner 


to let go of his hoard by making the profits too tempting to be resisted. 
Capital is represented as a shy and timid maiden who must be courted, if 
won. Let me suggest a plan for bringing money from Europe. If it be pos- 
sible, let us enact a law "Whereas confidence must be restored; and whereas 
money will always come from its hiding place if the inducement is sufficient, 
Therefore, be it enacted, That every man who borrows $i shall pay back $2 
and interest (the usury law not to be enforced)." 

Would not English capital come "on the swiftest ocean greyhounds?** 
The money loaner of London would say: "I will not loan in India or Egypt 
or in South America. The inhabitants of those countries are a wicked and 
ungodly people and refuse to pay more than they borrowed. I will loan in 
the United States, for there lives an honest people, who delight in a sound 
currency and pay in an honest dollar." Why does not some one propose that 
plan? Because no one would dare to increase by law the number of dollars 
which the debtor must pay, and yet by some it is called wise statesmanship to 
do indirectly and in the dark what no man has the temerity to propose 
directly and openly. 

We have been called cranks and lunatics and idiots because we have warned 
our fellow-men against the inevitable and intolerable consequences which would 
follow the adoption of a gold standard by all the world. But who, I ask, can be 
silent in the presence of such impending calamities? The United States, Eng- 
land, France, and Germany own today about $2,600,000,000 of the world's 
supply of gold coin, or about five-sevenths of the total amount, and yet these 
four nations contain but a small fraction of the inhabitants of the globe. 
What will be the exchangeable value of a gold dollar when India's people, out- 
numbering alone the inhabitants of the four great nations named, reach out 
after their share of gold coin? What will be the final price of gold when all 
the nations of the Occident and Orient join in the scramble? 

A distinguished advocate of the gold standard said recently, in sub- 
stance: "Wheat has now reached a point where the English can afford to 
buy it, and gold will soon return to relieve our financial embarrassment." How 
delighted the farmer will be when he realizes what an opportunity he has to 
save his country! A nation in distress; banks failing; mines closed; laborers 
unemployed; enterprise at a standstill, and behold, the farmer, bowed with un- 
ceasing, even if unremunerative, toil, steps forth to save his country — by sell- 
ing his wheat below the cost of production! And I am afraid he will even now 
be censured for allowing the panic to go as far as it has before reducing his 

It seems cruel that upon the growers of wheat and cotton, our staple 
exports, should be placed the burden of supplying us, at whatever cost, with 
the necessary gold, and yet the financier quoted has suggested the only means, 
except the issue of bonds, by which our stock of gold can be replenished. If 
it is difficult now to secure gold, what will be the condition when the demand 
is increased by its adoption as the world's only primary money? We would 
simply put gold upon an auction block, with every nation as a bidder, and 
each ounce of the standard metal would be knocked down to the one offering 
the most of all other kinds of property. Every disturbance of finance in one 
country would communicate itself to every other, and in the misery which 


would follow it would be of little consolation to know that others were suffer- 
ing as much as, or more than, we. 

I have only spoken of the immediate effects of the substitution of gold as 
the world's only money of ultimate redemption. The worst remains to be 
told. If, as in the resumption of specie payments in 1879, we could look for- 
ward to a time when the contraction would cease, the debtor might become a 
tenant upon his former estate and the home owner assume the role of the 
homeless with the sweet assurance that his children or his children's children 
might live to enjoy the blessings of a "stable currency." But, sir, the hapless 
and hopeless producer of wealth goes forth into a night illuminated by no 
star; he embarks upon a sea whose further shore no mariner may find; he 
travels in a desert where the ever-retreating mirage makes his disappointment 
a thousand-fold more keen. Let the world once commit its fortunes to the 
use of gold alone and it must depend upon the annual increase of that metal 
to keep pace with the need for money. 

The Director of the Mint gives about $130,000,000 as the world's production 
last year. Something like one-third is produced in connection with silver, 
and must be lost if silver mining is rendered unproductive. It is estimated that 
nearly two-thirds of the annual product is used in the arts, and the amount 
so used is increasing. Where, then, is the supply to meet the increasing de- 
mands of an increasing population? Is there some new California or some un- 
discovered Australia yet to be explored? 

Is it not probable that the supply available for coinage will diminish rather 
than increase? Jacobs, in his work on the Precious Metals, has calculated the 
appreciation of the monetary unit. He has shown that the almost imperceptible 
increase of 2 per cent, per year will amount to a total appreciation of 500 per 
cent, in a century. Or, to illustrate, that cotton at 10 cents today and wheat 
at 60 cents would mean cotton at 2 cents and wheat at 12 cents in one hundred 
years. A national, State or municipal debt renewed from time to time would, 
at the end of that period, be six times as great as when contracted, although 
several times the amount would have been paid in interest. 

When one realizes the full significance of a constantly appreciating standard 
he can easily agree with Alison that the Dark Ages resulted from a failure of 
the money supply. How can anyone view with unconcern the attempt to 
turn back the tide of civilization by the complete debasement of one-half of the 
world's money! When I point to the distress which, not suddenly, but gradu- 
ally is entering the habitations of our people; when I refer you to the census 
as conclusive evidence of the unequal distribution of wealth and of increasing 
tenancy among our people, of whom, in our cities, less than one-fourth now own 
their homes; when I suggest the possibility of this condition continuing until 
passed from a land of independent owners, we become a nation of landlords and 
tenants, you must tremble for civil liberty itself. 

Free government cannot long survive when the thousands enjoy the wealth 
of the country and the million share its poverty in common. Even now you 
hear among the rich an occasionally expressed contempt for popular govern- 
ment, and among the poor a protest against legislation which makes them "toil 
that others may reap." I appeal to you to restore justice and bring back 
prosperity while yet a peaceable solution can be secured. We mourn the lot of 


unhappy Ireland, whose alien owners drain it of its home created wealth; but 

we may reach a condition, if present tendencies continue, when her position at 

this time will be an object of envy, and some poet may write of our cities as 

Goldsmith did of the "Deserted Village:" 

While scourged by famine from a BmiUng land. 
The mournful peasant leads his humble band, 
And, while he sinks without one hand to save. 
The country blooms— a garden and a grave. 

But, lest I may be accused of reasonless complaining, let me call unimpeach- 
able witnesses who will testify to the truth of my premises and to the correct- 
ness of my conclusions. 

Jevons says: 

If all nations of the globe were suddenly and simultaneously to demonetize sllyer 
and require gold money a reyolutlon In the value of gold would be Inevitable. 

Giflin, who is probably the most fanatical adherent of the gold standard, 

says, in his book entitled The Case Against Bimetallism: 

The primary offender in the matter, perhaps, was Germany, which made a mis- 
take, as I believe, in substituting gold for silver aa the standard money of the country. 
• • • To some extent also Italy has been an offender in this matter, the resumption 
of specie payments in that country on a gold basis being entirely a work of superfluity: 
the resumption on a silver basis would have been preferable. * * * No doubt the pres- 
sure on gold would have been more severe than it has been if the United States had 
not passed the Bland coinage law. 

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Rayner) said in the opening speech 

of this debate: 

In my opinion there Is not a sufficient amount of gold In existence to supply the 
demands of commerce and the necessities of the world's circulation. 

Mr. Balfour, member of Parliament, in a speech recently made, said: 

Let Germany, India, and the United States try a gold currency and a tremor seizes 
every one of our commercial magnates. They look forward, in the immediate future, 
to catastrophe, and feel that the ultimate result may be a slow appreciation of the stand- 
ard of value, which is perhaps the most deadening and benumbing influence that can 
touch the enterprise of a nation. 

Mr. Goschen, delegate from Great Britain, said at the International Mone- 
tary Conference in 1878: 

If, however, other States were to carry on a propaganda in favor of a gold stand- 
ard and the demonetization of silver, the Indian government would be obliged to recon- 
sider its position and might be forced by events to take measures similar to those taken 
elsewhere. In that case the scramble to get rid of silver might provoke one of the grav- 
est crises ever undergone by commerce. One or two States might demonetize silver 
without serious results, but if all demoneUze there would be no buyers, and sliver would 
fall in alarming proportions. * * * If all States should resolve on the adoption of 
a gold standard, the question arose, would there be sufficient gold for the purpose with- 
out a tremendous crisis? There would be a fear on the one hand of a depreciation of 
silver, and one on the other of a rise In the value of gold, and a corresponding fall in 
the prices of all commodities. 

Italy, Russia, and Austria, whenever they resume specie payments, would require 
metal, and if all other States went In the direction of a gold standard, these countries 
too would be forced to take gold. Resumption on their part would be facilitated by the 
maintenance of silver as a part of the legal tender of the world. The American pro- 
posal for a universal double standard seemed Impossible of realization, a veritable Utopia; 
but the theory of a universal gold standard was Utopian, and indeed involved a false 
Utopia. It was better for the world at large that the two metals should continue in cir- 
culation than that one should be universally substituted for the other. 


Thus does an eminent English monometallist denounce the idea of a 
universal gold standard and foretell its consequences. But we are not de- 
pendent for authority upon foreign advocates of a gold standard. Read the 
words of him who for many years was the guiding genius of the Republican 
party, Hon. James G. Blaine, and say whether he was a lunatic because he 
described in emphatic words the dangers attendant upon universal monometal- 
lism. He said upon the floor of the House, February 7, 1878: 

On the much vexed and long mooted question as to a bimetallic or monometallic 
standard, my own views are sufficiently indicated in the remarks I have made. I believe the 
•tmgsle now going on in this country and in other countries for a single gold standard 
would, if successful, produce widespread disaster in and throughout the commercial world. 

The destrucUon of silver as money and establishing gold as the sole unit of value 
most have a ruinous effect on all forms of property except those investments which yield 
a fixed return in money. These would be enormously enhanced in value, and would gain 
a disproportionate and unfair advantage over every other species of property. If, as the 
moat reliable staUstlcs affirm, there are nearly 17.000.000,000 of coin or bullion in the 
world, not very unequally divided between gold and sliver, it Is Impossible to strike 
silver out of existence as money without results which will prove distressing to millions 
and utterly disastrous to tens of thousands. 

Again, he said: 

I believe gold and silver coin to be the money of the Constitution: indeed, the 
money of the American people, anterior to the Constitution which the great organic 
law recognized as quite independent of its own existence. No power was conferred 
on Congrress to declare either metal should not be money. Congress has, therefore, In 
my Judgment, no power to demonetize silver any more than to demonetize gold. 

Senator Sherman said in i86g: 

The contraction of the currency is a far more distressing operation than Senators 
suppose. Our own and other nations have gone through that operation before. It is not 
possible to take that voyage without the sorest distress. To every person except a cap- 
italist out of debt, or a salaried officer or annuitant, it is a period of loss, danger, 
lassitude of trade, fall of wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy, and disaster. It 
means ruin of all dealers whose debts are twice their business capital, though one-third 
less than their actual property. It means the fall of all agricultural production without 
any great reduction of taxes. What prudent man would dare to build a house, a rail- 
road, a factory, or a barn with this certain fact before him? 

Let me quote from an apostle of the Democratic faith, whose distinguished 
services in behalf of his party and his country have won for him the esteem of 
all. Mr. Carlisle, then a member of the House of Representatives, said, 
February 21, 1878: 

I know that the world's stock of precious metals is none too large, and I see no 
reason to apprehend that it will ever be so. Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the 
annual production of gold and silver coin shall keep pace with the annual increase 
of population, and industry. According to my views of the subject the conspiracy which 
seems to have been formed here and in Europe to destroy by legislation and otherwise 
from three-sevenths to one-half the metallic money of the world is the most gigantic 
crime of this or any other age. The consummation of such a scheme would ultimately 
entail more misery upon the human race than all the wars, pestilences, and famines that 
ever occurred in the history of the world. 

The absolute and instantaneous destruction of half the entire movable property of 
the world, including houses, ships, railroads, and other appliances for carrying on com- 
merce, while it would be felt more sensibly at the moment, would not produce anything 
like the prolonged distress and disorganization of society that must Inevitably result 
from the permanent annlhllaUon of one-half the metallic money of the world. 

The junior Senator from Texas (Mr. Mills) never did the party greater 
service than when, on the 3rd of February, 1886, on this floor he denounced, in 


language, the force and earnestness of which can not be surpassed, the attempted 
crime against silver. Let his words be an inspiration now: 

But in all the wild, reckless, and remorseless brutalities that have marked the foot- 
prints of resistless power there is some extenuating circumstance that mitigates the 
severity of the punishment due the crime. Some have been the product of the fierce 
passions of war. some have come from the antipathy that separates alien races, some from 
the superstitions of opposing religions. 

But the crime that is now sought to be perpetrated on more than fifty millions of 
people comes neither from the camp of a conqueror, the hand of a foreigner, nor the 
altar of an idolator. But it comes from those in whose veins runs the blood of the 
common ancestry, who were born under the same skies, speak the same language, 
reared in the same institutions, and nurtured in the principles of the same religious 
faith. It comes from the cold, phlegmatic, marble heart of avarice— avarice that seeks 
to paralyze labor, increase the burden of debt, and fill the land with destitution and 
suffering to gratify the lust for gold— avarice surrounded by every comfort that wealth can 
command, and rich enough to satisfy every want save that which refuses to be satisfied 
without the suffocation and strangulation of all the labor of the land. With a forehead 
that refuses to be ashamed it demands of Congress an act that will paralyze all the 
forces of production, shut out labor from all employment, increase the burden of debts 
and taxation, and send desolation and suffering to all the homes of the poor. 

Can language be stronger or conclusion more conclusive? What expres- 
sion can be more forcible than the "most gigantic crime of this or any other 
age?" What picture more vivid than that painted in the words, "The con- 
summation of such a scheme would ultimately entail more misery upon the 
human race than all the wars, pestilences, and famines that ever occurred in 
the history of the world?" What more scathing rebuke could be administered 
to avarice than that contained in the words of Mr. Mills? 

It is from the awful horrors described by these distinguished men, di^ering 
in politics, but united in sentiment, that I beg you, sirs, to save your fellow-men. 

On the base of the monument erected by a grateful people to the memory 

of the late Senator Hill, of Georgia, are inscribed these words: 

Who saves his country saves himself, and all things saved do bless him. Who 
lets his country die lets all things die, dies himself ignobly, and all things dying, curse him. 

If, sirs, in saving your country you save yourselves and earn the benedic- 
tions of all things saved, how much greater will be your reward if your efforts 
save not your country only but all mankind! If he who lets his country die, 
brings upon himself the curses of all things dying; in what language will an 
indignant people express their execration, if your action lead to the enslavement 
of the great majority of the people by the universal adoption of an appreciating 

Let me call your attention briefly to the advantages of bimetallism. It is 
not claimed that by the use of two metals at a fixed ratio absolute stability can 
be secured. We only contend that thus the monetary unit will become more 
stable in relation to other property than under a single standard. If a single 
standard were really more desirable than a double standard, we are not free 
to choose gold, and would be compelled to select silver. Gold and silver must 
remain component parts of the metallic money of the world — that must be 
accepted as an indisputable fact. Our abandonment of silver would in all proba- 
bility drive it out of use as primary money; and silver as a promise to pay gold 
is little, if any, better than a paper promise to pay. If bimetallism is impossible, 
then we must make up our minds to a silver standard or to the abandonment 
of both gold and silver. 



Let us suppose the worst that has been prophesied by our opponents, 
namely, that we would be upon a silver standard if we attempted the free 
coinage of both gold and silver at any ratio. Let us suppose that all our gold 
goes to Europe and we have only silver. Silver would not be inconvenient 
to use, because a silver certificate is just as convenient to handle as a gold cer- 
tificate, and the silver itself need not be handled except where it is necessary for 
change. Gold is not handled among the people. No one desires to accept 
any large amount in gold. The fact that the Treasury has always on hand 
a large amount of gold coin deposited in exchange for gold certificates shows 
that the paper representative is more desirable than the metal itself. If, follow- 
ing out the supposition, our gold goes abroad, Europe will have more money 
with which to buy our exports— cotton and wheat, cattle and hogs. 

If, on the other hand, we adopt gold, we must draw it from Europe, and 
thus lessen their money and reduce the price of our exports in foreign mar- 
kets. This, too, would decrease the total value of our exports and increase 
the amount of products which it would be necessary to send abroad to pay the 
principal and interest which we owe to bondholders and stockholders residing 
in Europe. Some have suggested the advisability of issuing gold bonds in 
order to maintain a gold standard. Let them remember that those bonds sold 
in this country will draw money from circulation and increase the stringency, 
and sold abroad will affect injuriously the price of our products abroad, thus 
making a double tax upon the toilers of the United States, who must ultimately 
pay them. 

Let them remember, too, that gold bonds held abroad must some time be 
paid in gold, and the exportation of that gold would probably raise a clamor 
for an extension of time in order to save this country from another stringency. 
A silver standard, too, would make us the trading center of all the silver-using 
countries of the world, and these countries contain far more than one-half of the 
world's population. What an impetus would be given to our Western and 
Southern seaports, such as San Francisco, Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, 
Savannah, and Charleston! Then, again, we produce our silver, and produce it 
in quantities which would to some extent satisfy our monetary needs. 

On motion of Mr. Hunter the time of Mr. Bryan was extended indefinitely. 

Mr. Bryan. I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the House. 

Our annual product of gold is less than 50 cents per capita. Deduct from 
this sum the loss which would be occasioned to the gold supply by the closing 
of our silver mines, which produce gold in conjunction with silver; deduct, 
also, the amount consumed in the arts, and the amount left for coinage is really 
inconsiderable. Thus, with a gold standard, we would be left dependent upon 
foreign powers for our annual money supply. They say we must adopt a gold 
standard in order to trade with Europe. Why not reverse the proposition and 
say that Europe must resume the use of silver in order to trade with us? But 
why adopt either gold or silver alone? Why not adopt both and trade with 
both gold-using and silver-using countries? The principle of bimetallism is 
established upon a scientific basis. 

The Government does not try to fix the purchasing power of the dollar, 
either gold or silver. It simply says, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, 
"The money unit shall stand upon the two metals," and then allows the ex- 


changeable value of that unit to rise or fall according as the total product of 
both metals decreases or increases in proportion to the demand for money. In 
attempting to maintain the parity between the two metals at a fixed ratio, 
the Government does not undertake the impossible. France for several years 
did maintain the parity approximately at 15H to i by offering unlimited coinage 
to both metals at that ratio. It is very common for some people to urge, 
"You cannot put value into anything by law," and I am sorry to see some pro- 
claim this who know by rich experience how easy it is for the Government to 
legislate prices up or down. 

We were called together to relieve financial distress by legislation. Some 
propose to relieve the present stringency of the money market by removing the 
tax on national bank circulation and allowing banks to issue 100 per cent, on 
their bonds instead of 90 per cent. This legislation would put value into bank 
stocks by law, because it would add to the profits of the bank, and such a law 
would probably raise the market price of bonds by increasing the demand for 
them. I will not discuss the merits of this proposition now. Let those who 
favor it prepare to justify themselves before their constituents. The New York 
World of August 3 contained an article encouraging the banks to issue more 
money under the present law. It showed the profits as follows: 

These bonds are selling now at 109 to 110. At this latter period a $100,000 bond 
transaction would stand as follows: 
$100,000 U. S. 4's at 110, less 1-3 per cent accrued Interest, $109,666 net, would 

cost $109,666 

Less circulation Issued on this amount 90,000 

Making the actual cash investment only $19,666 

On which the bank would receive an income of over 12% per cent., as follows: 

Interest on $100,000 4's per annum |i,000 

Less tax 1 per cent, on circulation $900 

Less sinking fund to retire premium to be improved at 6 per cent 464 

Less expenses 100 


Net Income $2,636 

Already a good portion of these bonds held in reserve are coming into the market 
and will soon find their way into the hands of national banks. 

If the proposed law is adopted $900 will Be taken from the expense column 
by the repeal of the tax on circulation and $10,000 will be taken from the cost 
of investment, so that the profits would amount to $3,436 on an investment 
of $9,666, or more than ZZ per cent. If, however, the increased demand for 
bonds raised the premium to 15 per cent., we could only calculate a little less 
than $3,436 on an investment of $14,666, or nearly 25 per cent. This they 
would probably call a fair divide. The bondholder would receive an advantage 
in the increased premium of, say, $25,000,000, and the national bank would be 
able to make about double on its investment what it does now. If the pre- 
mium should increase more than 5 per cent, the bondholder would make more 
and the bank less. If the premium should not increase that much the bond- 
holder would make less and the bank more. 

Let those, I repeat, who favor this plan, be prepared to defend it before a 
constituency composed of people who are not making 5 per cent, on an average 
on the money invested in farms or enterprises, and let those who will profit by 
the law cease to deny the ability of Government to increase the price of prop- 


erty by law. One is almost moved to tears by the sight of New England manu- 
facturers protesting with indignation against the wisdom or possibility of giv- 
ing fictitious value to a product, when for the last thirty years they have drained 
the rest of the country and secured artificial prices by protective tariff laws. 
Some of our eastern friends accuse the advocates of free coinage of favoring 

Repudiation has not been practiced much in recent years by the debtor, but 
in 1869 the Credit Strengthening Act enabled the bondholder to repudiate a 
contract made with the Government and to demand coin in payment of a bond 
for which he had given paper and which was payable in lawful money. That 
act increasing the market value of the bonds gave a profit to many who now 
join the beneficiaries of the act assuming the District debt in vociferous procla- 
mation that "the Government cannot create value." Does not the location of 
a public building add to the value of adjacent real estate? Do not towns contest 
the location of a county seat because of the advantage it brings? Does not the 
use of gold and silver as money increase the value of each ounce of each metal? 

These are called precious metals because the production is limited and can- 
not be increased indefinitely at will. If this Government or a number of gov- 
ernments can offer a market unlimited as compared with the supply, the bullion 
value of gold and silver can be maintained at the legal ratio. The moment 
one metal tends to cheapen, the use falls on it and increases its price, while 
the decreased demand for the dearer metal retards its rise and thus the bullion 
values are kept near to their legal ratio, so near that the variation can cause 
far less inconvenience and injustice than the variation in the exchangeable 
value of the unit would inflict under a single standard. The option is always 
given to the debtor in a double standard. 

In fact, the system could not exist if the option remained with the creditor, 
for he would demand the dearer metal and thus increase any fluctuation in 
bullion values, while the option in the hands of the debtor reduces the fluctua- 
tion to the minimum. That the unit under a double standard is more stable 
in its relation to all other things is admitted by Jevons and proven by several 
illustrations. Mr. GiflFen tries to avoid the force of the admission by saying 
that the difference in favor of the double standard is only in the proportion of 
2 to I, and therefore not sufficient to justify its adoption. It would seem that 
where stability is so important — and it never was so important as today, when 
so many long-time contracts are executed — even a slight difference in favor of 
the double standard ought to make it acceptable. 

We established a bimetallic standard in 1792, but silver, being overvalued 
by our ratio of 15 to i, stayed with us and gold went abroad, where mint ratios 
were more favorable. 

I have here a silver coin [exhibiting it] which came from the mint in 1795. 
It has upon the edge these significant words: "Hundred Cents — One Dollar 
or Unit" It would seem, therefore, that the weight of the gold dollar was reg- 
ulated by the silver dollar, and the gold pieces provided for made multiples of 
it. In 1834 and in 1837 the alloy was changed and the gold dollar reduced in 
size in order to correspond to the newly established ratio of 16 to i. The 
amount of pure silver in the standard dollar has never been changed since its 
adoption in 1793. 


The ratio of i6 to i overvalued gold and our silver went abroad. The silver 
dollar was worth about 3 cents more than the gold dollar, because it could be 
coined in France at the ratio of i^Vi to i. Thus during all the period prior to 
1873 this country enjoyed bimetallism and, although at one time we used one 
metal and at another time another, no statesman arose to demand a single 
standard. We now have three kinds of bimetallists — ^those who favor a double 
standard only by international agreement, those who favor independent action 
at a changed ratio, and those who favor independent action at the present ratio. 
Those favoring an international agreement might be again divided into those 
who favor an agreement by a few nations, those who favor an agreement by 
many nations, and those who favor it only on condition that all nations would 

I suppose it would hardly be proper to further divide them into those who 

really desire an international agreement and those who utilize the possibility of 

an international agreement to prevent independent action. I am afraid the 

agreement will not be brought about by those who, like the gentleman from 

Ohio (Mr. Harter), are willing to try it, but have no faith in its permanency; 

nor will it receive much aid, I fear, from the gentleman from New York (Mr. 

Hendrix), wh6 said on last Saturday: 

I predict to you that Inside of three months— before this CongroBs meets again— 
If you repeal this Sherman law and adjourn. England will make proposals to this 
country to come into a monetary conference and see what can be done for the sake of her 
ward, India. 

Less than five minutes before he had pierced the veil of the future with 
prophetic ken and declared: 

The moving finger of Time, down from the days when gold started in the race for 
first place to this moment, has pointed to a single unit of value. It is our destiny. It will 
triumph in this Hall— perhaps not in this Congress nor in your day; but it is going to 
become the financial policy of this country Just as sure as tomorrow morning's sun will rise. 

Any hope of bimetallism there? 

What is the prospect for the establishment of international bimetallism? 
I would be glad to see the unlimited coinage of gold and silver at a 
fixed ratio among the nations, but how is such an agreement to be secured? 
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Rayner) says the unconditional repeal of 
the Sherman law will bring England to terms. Is it impossible to extract 
a lion's teeth without putting your head in his mouth? Is it not a dangerous ex- 
periment to join England in a single standard in order to induce her to 
join us in a double standard? International agreement is an old delusion and 
has done important duty on many previous occasions. 

The opponents of the Bland law in 1878 were waiting for international 
bimetallism. Mr. Cleveland mentioned the prospect of it in his message in 
1885, and again this year. It was a valuable weapon in i8qo, when the Sherman 
bill was passed and the Brussels conference was called in time to carry us over 
the last Presidential election. We are still waiting, and those are waiting 
most patiently who favor a gold standard. Are we any nearer to an interna- 
tional agreement than we were fifteen years ago? The European nations wait on 
England, and she refused within a year to even consider the adoption of the 
double standard. Can we conquer her by waiting? We have tried the 
Fabian policy. 






Suppose wc try bringing her to terms by action. Let me appeal to your 

patriotism. Shall we make our laws dependent upon England's action and thus 

allow her to legislate for us upon the most important of all questions? Shall 

we confess our inability to enact monetary laws? Are we an English colony 

or an independent people? If the use of gold alone is to make us slaves, let us 

"> use both metals and be free. If there be some living along the eastern coast — 

' better acquainted with the beauties of the Alps than with the grandeur of the 

Rockies, more accustomed to the sunny skies of Italy than to the invigorating 

breezes of the Mississippi Valley — who are not willing to trust their fortunes 

and their destinies to American citizens, let them learn that the people living 

) between the Alleghanies to the Golden Gate are not afraid to cast their all upon 

the Republic and rise or fall with it. 

One hundred and seventeen years ago the liberty bell gave notice to a wait- 
ing and expectant people that independence had been declared. There may be 
doubting, trembling ones among us now, but, sirs, I do not overestimate it when 
I say that out of twelve millions of voters, more than ten millions are waiting, 
^ anxiously waiting, for the signal which shall announce the financial independ- 

; cnce of the United States. This Congress cannot more surely win the ap- 

I proval of a grateful people than by declaring that this nation, the grandest which 

^ the world has ever seen, has the right and the ability to legislate for its 

I own people on every subject, regardless of the wishes, the entreaties, or the 

' threats of foreign powers. 

Perhaps the most important question for us to consider is the question 
of ratio. Comparatively few people in this country are in favor of a gold 
standard, and no national party has ever advocated it. Comparatively few, also, 
will be deceived by the promise of international bimetallism annually held out to 
us. Among those in favor of bimetallism, and in favor of independent action on 
the part of the United States, there is, however, an honest difference of opinion 
as to the particular ratio at which the unlimited coinage of gold and silver 
should be undertaken. The principle of bimetallism does not stand upon any 
certain ratio, and may exist at i to 30 as well as at i to 16. 

In fixing the ratio we should select that one which will secure the 
greatest advantage to the public and cause the least injustice. The present 
ratio, in my judgment, should be adopted. A change in the ratio could be 
made (as in 1834) by reducing the size of the gold dollar or by increasing 
the size of the silver dollar, or by making a change in the weight of both 
dollars. A large silver dollar would help the creditor. A smaller gold dollar 
would help the debtor. It is not just to do either, but if a change must be made 
the benefit should be given to the debtor rather than to the creditor. 

Let no one accuse me of defending the justness of any change; but I 
repeat it, if we are given a choice between a change which will aid the debtor 
by reducing the size of his debt and a change which will aid the creditor by 
increasing the amount which he is to receive, either by increasing the number 
of his dollars or their size, the advantage must be given to the debtor, and no 
man during this debate, whatever may be his private wish or interest, will ad- 
vocate the giving of the advantage to the creditor. 

To illustrate the effect of changing the ratio let us take, for convenience, the 
ratio of 24 to i, as advocated by some. We could make this change by reducing 


the weight of the gold dollar one-third. This would give to the holders of 
gold an advantage of some $200,000,000, but the creditors would lose several 
billions of dollars in the actual value of their debts. A debt contracted before 
1873 would not be scaled, because the new gold dollar would purchase as much 
as the old gold dollar would in 1873. Creditors, however, whose loans have 
been made since that time would suffer, and the most recent loans would show 
the greatest loss. The value of silver bullion has only fallen in relation to 
gold. But the purchasing power of one ounce of silver has varied less since 
1873 than has the purchasing power of one ounce of gold, which would in- 
dicate that gold had risen. 

If, on the other hand, the ratio is changed by increasing the size of, the 
silver dollar, it would be necessary to recoin our silver dollars into dollars 
a half larger, or we would have in circulation two legal tender silver dollars of 
different sizes. Of the two plans it would be better, in my judgment, to keep 
both dollars in circulation together, though unequal in weight, rather than to 
recoin the lighter dollars. The recoinage of more than 500,000,000 of silver 
dollars, or the bullion representing them, would cause a shrinkage of about 
$170,000,000, or one-third of our silver money; it would cause a shrinkage of 
nearly one-sixth of our metallic money and of more than one-tenth of our 
total circulation. This contraction would increase our debts more than a billion 
dollars and decrease the nominal value of our property more than five billions. 

A change in the ratio made by increasing the size of the silver dollar as 
above suggested would also decrease by one-third the number of dollars 
which could be coined from the annual product of silver. If, as Mr. Carlisle has 
said, the supply of metal, both gold and silver, is none too large to keep 
pace with population, the increase in the weight of each dollar would make the 
supply to that extent deficient. A change in ratio, whether secured by decreas- 
ing the gold dollar or by increasing the silver dollar, would probably make 
an international agreement more difficult, because nearly all of the silver coin 
now in existence circulates at a ratio less than ours. 

If the change should be made in this country by increasing the size of the 
silver dollar and an international agreement secured upon the new ratio, to be 
effected by other nations in the same way, the amount of money in the world, 
that is metallic money, would suffer a contraction of more than $1,000,000,000, 
to the enormous injury of the debtor class and to the enormous advantage of the 
creditor class. If we believe that the value of gold has risen because its supply 
has not increased as fast as the demand caused by favorable legislation, then it 
would be unfair to continue this appreciation by other legislation favorable to 
gold. It would be a special injustice to the mine owner and to the farmer, 
whose products have fallen with silver, to make perpetual the injunction against 
their prosperity. 

We often hear our opponents complain of the "cupidity of the mine owner." 
Let us admit that the mine owner is selfish, and that he will profit by the in- 
creased price of silver bullion. Let us, for the sake of argument, go further, and 
accuse him of favoring the free coinage of silver solely for the purpose of in- 
creasing the price of his product. Does that make him worse than other men? 
Is not the farmer selfish enough to desire a higher price for wheat? Is not the 
cotton-grower selfish enough to desire a higher price for his cotton? Is not 


the laboring man selfish enough to desire higher wages? And, if I may be 
pardoned for the boldness, are not bankers and business men selfish enough 
to ask for legislation at our hands which will give them prosperity? Was not 
this extraordinary session called in order to bring back prosperity to our busi- 
ness men? 

Is it any more important that you should keep a mercantile house from 
failing than that you should keep a mine from suspending? Are those who 
desire free coinage of silver in order that the barren wastes should be made to 
"blossom like the rose" any worse than those who want the Sherman law re- 
pealed in order to borrow foreign gold and retire clearing house certificates? 
There is a class of people whose interest in financial legislation is too often 
overlooked. The money-loaner has just as much interest in the rise in the 
value of his product — money — as farmers and miners have in the increased price 
of their products. 

The man who has $10,000 in money becomes worth $20,000 in reality when 
prices fall one-half. Shall we assume that the money-lenders of this and other 
countries ignore the advantage which an appreciated currency gives to them 
and desire it simply for the benefit of the poor man and the laborer? What 
refining influence is there in their business which purges away the dross of 
selfishness and makes pure and patriotic only their motives? Has some new 
dispensation reversed the parable and left Lazarus in torment while Dives is 
borne aloft in Abraham's bosom? 

But is the silver miner after all so selfish as to be worthy of censure? Does 
he ask for some new legislation or for some innovation inaugurated in his 
behalf? No. He pleads only for the restoration of the money of the fathers. 
He asks to have given back to him a right which he enjoyed from 1792 to 1873. 
During all those years he could deposit his silver bullion at the mints and re- 
ceive full legal tender coins at the rate of $1.29 for each ounce of silver, and 
during a part of the time his product could be converted into money at even a 
higher price. Free coinage can only give back to him what demonetization 
took away. He does not ask for a silver dollar redeemable in a gold dollar, but 
for a silver dollar which redeems itself. 

If the bullion value of silver has not been reduced by hostile legislation, 
the free coinage of silver at the present ratio can bring to the mine owner no 
benefit, except by enabling him to pay a debt already contracted with less 
ounces of silver. If the price of his product has been reduced by hostile legis- 
lation, is he asking any more than we would ask under the same circum- 
stances in seeking to remove the oppressive hand of the law? Let me suggest. 
too, that those who favor an international agreement are estopped from ob- 
jecting to the profits of the silver mine owner, because an international agree- 
ment could only be effected at some ratio near to ours, probably 1%]^ 
to I, and this would just as surely inure to the benefit of the owner of silver as 
would free coinage established by the independent action of this country. 

If our opponents were correct in asserting that the price of silver bullion 
could be maintained at 129 cents an ounce by international agreement, but not 
by our separate action, then international bimetallism would bring a larger 
profit to the mine owner than the free coinage of silver by this country could. 
Let the international bimetallist, then, find some better objection to free 
coinage than that based on the mine owner's profit 


But what is the mine owner's profit? Has anyone told you the average 
cost of mining an ounce of silver? You have heard of some particular mine 
where silver can be produced at a low cost, but no one has attempted to give 
you any reliable data as to the average cost of production. I had a letter from 
Mr. Leech when he was Director of the Mint, saying that the Government is in 
possession of no data in regard to the cost of gold production and none of any 
value in regard to silver. No calculation can be made as to the profits of 
mining which does not include money spent in prospecting and in mines which 
have ceased to pay, as well as those which are profitably worked. 

When we see a wheel of fortune with twenty-four paddles, see those 
paddles sold for lo cents apiece, and see the holder of the winning paddle draw 
$2, we do not conclude that money can be profitably invested in a wheel of for- 
tune. We know that those who bought expended altogether $2.40 on the turn 
of the wheel, and that the man who won only received $2; but our opponents 
insist upon estimating the profits of silver mining by the cost of the winning 
paddle. It is safe to say that taking the gold and silver of the world — and it is 
more true of silver than of gold — every dollar's worth of metal has cost a dollar. 
It is strange that those who watch so carefully lest the silver miner shall receive 
more for his product than the bare cost of production ignore the more fortunate 
gold miner. 

Did you ever hear a monometallist complain because a man could produce 
25.8 grains of gold, 9 fine, at any price whatever, and yet take it to our mint and 
have it stamped into a dollar with full legal tender qualities? I saw at the 
World's Fair a few days ago a nugget of gold, just as it was found, worth over 
$3,000. What an outrage that the finder should be allowed to convert that into 
money at such an enormous profit! And yet no advocate of honest money 
raises his hand to stop that crime. 

The fact is that the price of gold and silver does not depend upon the cost 
of production, but upon the law of supply and demand. It is true that pro- 
duction will stop when either metal cannot be produced at a profit; but so 
long as the demand continues equal to the supply the value of an ounce of 
either metal may be far above the cost of production. With most kinds of 
property a rise in price will cause increased production; for instance, if the price 
of wheat rises faster than the price of other things, there will be a tendency to 
increased production until the price falls; but this tendency cannot be carried 
out in the case of the precious metals, because the metals must be found before 
it can be produced, and finding is uncertain. 

Between 1800 and 1849 an ounce of gold or silver would exchange for more 
of other things than it would from 1849 to 1873, yet during the latter period the 
production of both gold and silver greatly increased. It will be said that the 
purchasing power of an ounce of metal fell because of the increased supply; but 
that fall did not check production, nor has the rise in the purchasing power of 
an ounce of gold since 1873 increased the production. The production of both 
gold and silver is controlled so largely by chance as to make some of the laws 
applicable to other property inapplicable to the precious metals. If the supply 
of gold decreases without any diminution of the demand the exchangeable value 
of each ounce of gold is bound to increase, although the cost of producing the 
gold may continue to fall. 


Why do not the advocates of gold monometallism recognize and complain 
of the advantage given to gold by laws which increase the demand for it and, 
therefore, the value of each ounce? Instead of that they confine themselves to 
the denunciation of the silver-mine owner. I have never advocated the use of 
either gold or silver as the means of giving employment to miners, nor has 
the defence of bimetallism been conducted by those interested in the production 
of silver. We favor the use of gold and silver as money because money is a 
necessity and because these metals, owing to special fitness, have been used from 
time immemorial. The entire annual supply of both metals, coined at the 
present ratio, does not afford too large a sum of money. 

If, as is estimated, two-thirds of the $130,000,000 of gold produced annually 
are consumed in the arts, only $46,000,000— or less than we need for this country 
alone — are left to coinage. If one-sixth of the $185,000,000 of silver produced 
annually is used in the arts, $155,000,000 are left for coinage. India has been in 
the habit of taking about one-third of that sum. Thus the total amount of gold 
and silver annually available for all the people of all the world is only about 
$200,000,000, or about four times what we need in this country to keep pace 
with increasing population. And as population increases the annual addition 
to the money must also increase. 

The total sum of metallic money is a little less than $8,000,000,000. The 

$200,000,000 per annum is about two-and-a-half per cent, on the total volume of 

metallic money, taking no account of lost coins and shrinkage by abrasion. 

To quote again the language of Mr. Carlisle. 

Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the annual production of gold coin shall keep 
pace with the annual Increase of popuIaUon, commerce and industry. 

An increase of the silver dollar one-third by an international agreement 
would reduce by 50,000,000 the number of dollars which could be coined from 
the annual product of silver, which would amount to a decrease of about one- 
fourth of the entire increase of metallic money, while the abandonment of silver 
entirely would destroy three-quarters of the annual increase in metallic money, 
or possibly all of it, if we take into consideration the reduction of the gold 
supply by the closing of gold-producing silver mines. 

Thus it is almost certain that without silver the sum of metallic money 
would remain stationary, if not actually decrease, from year to year, while pop- 
ulation increases and new enterprises demand, from time to time, a larger sum 
of currency. Thus it will be seen that the money question is broader than the 
interest of a few mine owners. It touches every man, woman, and child in all 
the world, and affects those in every condition of life and society. 

The interest of the mine owner is incidental. He profits by the use of silver 
as money just as the gold miner profits by the use of gold as money; just as 
the newspaper profits by the law compelling the advertising of foreclosures; 
just as the seaport profits by the deepening of its harbor; just as the horse 
seller would profit by a war which required the purchase of a large number of 
horses for cavalry service, or just as the undertaker would profit by the decent 
burial of a pauper at public expense. 

All of these receive an incidental benefit from public acts. Shall we com- 
plain if the use of gold and silver as money gives employment to men, builds 
up cities and fills our mountains with life and industry? Shall we oppress all 


debtors and derange all business agreements in order to prevent the producers 
of money metals from obtaining for them more than actual cost? We do not 
reason that way in other things; why suppress the reason in this matter because 
of cultivated prejudices against the white metal? But what interest has the 
farmer in this subject, you may ask. The same that every laboring man has in 
a currency sufficient to carry on the commerce and business of a country. The 
employer cannot give work to men unless he can carry on the business at a 
profit, and he is hampered and embarrassed by a currency which appreciates 
because of its insufficiency. 

The farmer labors under a double disadvantage. He not only suffers as 
a producer from all those causes which reduce the price of property, but he is 
thrown into competition with the products of India. Without Indian competi- 
tion his lot would be hard enough, for if he is a land owner he finds his 
capital decreasing with an appreciating standard, and if he owes on the land 
he finds his equity of redemption extinguished. The last census shows a real 
estate mortgage indebtedness in the five great agricultural States — Illinois, Iowa, 
Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska — of more than one billion of dollars. A rising 
standard means a great deal of distress to these mortgagors. But as I said, the 
producers of wheat and cotton have a special grievance, for the prices of those 
articles are governed largely by the prices in Liverpool, and as silver goes 
down our prices fall, while the rupee price remains the same. I quote from 
the agricultural report of i8qo, page 8: 

The recent legislation looking to the restoration of the bimetallic standard of our 
currency, and the consequent enhancement of the value of silver, has unquestionably 
had much to do with the recent advance in the price of cereals. The same cause has 
advanced the price of wheat in Russia and India, and In the same degree reduced their 
power of competition. English gold was formerly exchanged for cheap silver and wheat 
purchased with the cheaper metal was sold in Great Britain for gold. Much of this 
advantage is lost by the appreciation of silver in those countries. It is reasonable, 
therefore, to expect much higher prices for wheat than have been received in recent years. 

Mr. Rusk's reasoning is correct. Shall we by changing the ratio fix the 
price of wheat and cotton at the present low price? If it is possible to do so it 
is no more than fair that we restore silver to its former place, and thus give 
back to the farmer some of his lost prosperity. Can silver be maintained on a 
parity with gold at the present ratio? It has been shown that if we should 
fail and our effort should result in a single silver standard it would be better 
for us than the adoption of the gold standard — ^that is, that the worst that 
could come from the attempt would be far better than the best that our oppo- 
nents could offer us. 

It has been shown that dangers and disadvantages attend a change of ratio. 
It may now be added that no change in the ratio can be made with fairness 
or intelligence without first putting gold and silver upon a perfect equality 
in order to tell what the natural ratio is. If a new ratio is necessary, who 
can tell just what that ratio ought to be? Who knows to what extent the 
divergence between gold and silver is due to natural laws and to what extent 
it is due to artificial laws? We know that the mere act of India in suspending 
free coinage, although she continues to buy and coin on government account, 
reduced the price of silver more than lo cents per ounce. Can anyone doubt 
that the restoration of free coinage in that country would increase the bullion 


price of silver? Who doubts that the free coinage of silver by the United States 
would increase its bullion price? 

The only question is how much. Is it only a guess, for no one can state 
with mathematical precision what the rise would be. The full use of silver, 
too, would stop the increased demand for gold, and thus prevent any further 
rise in its price. It is because no one can speak with certainty that I insist that 
no change in the ratio can be intelligently made until both metals are offered 
equal privileges at the mint. When we have the free and unlimited coinage of 
gold and silver at the present ratio, then, and then only, can we tell whether 
any of the apparent fall in the bullion price of silver is due to circumstances 
over which we have no control, if so, how much? If this experiment should 
demonstrate the necessity for a change of ratio it can be easily made, and should 
be made in such a way as to cause the least injury to society. But we can, in my 
judgment, maintain the parity at the present ratio. I state this without hesita- 
tion, notwithstanding the fact that our opponents do not disguise the contempt 
which they feel for one who can believe this possible. If the past teaches any- 
thing it teaches the possibility of this country maintaining the parity alone. 
The Royal Commission of England stated in its report that France did main- 
tain the parity at I5J^ to i, although she has not half our population or en- 
terprise. During the years when her mint laws controlled the price of gold 
and silver bullion the changes in the relative production of gold and silver were 
greater than they have been since. At one time before 1873 the value of the 
silver product was related to the value of the gold product as 3 to i, while at 
another time the relation was reversed, and the production of gold to silver 
was as 3 to i. 

No such changes have occurred since; and the present value of the silver 

product is only ij^ to i of gold. Much of the prejudice against silver is due 

to the fact that it has been falling as compared to gold. Let it begin to rise 

and it will become more acceptable as a money metal. Goschen, at the Paris 

Conference, very aptly stated the condition when he said: 

At present there is a vicious circle. States are afraid of employing silver on account 
of the depreciation, and the depreciation continues because States refuse to employ it. 

Let that "vicious circle" be broken and silver will resume its rightful 
place. We believe, in other words, that the opening of our mints to the free 
and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at 16 to i would immediately result in 
restoring silver to the coinage value of $1.29 per ounce, not only here, but every- 
where. That there could be no difference between the dollar coined and the 
same weight of silver uncoined, when one could be exchanged for the other, 
needs no argument. 

We do not believe that the gold dollar would go to a premium, because it 
could not find a better coinage ratio elsewhere, and because it could be put 
to no purpose for which a silver dollar would not be as good. If our ratio 
were i to 14 our gold would of course be exchanged for silver; but with our 
ratio of x6 to i gold is worth more here than abroad, and foreign silver would 
not come here, because it is circulating at home at a better ratio than we offer. 

We need not concern ourselves, therefore, about the coin silver. All that 
wc have to take care of is the annual product from the mines, about 40 per cent. 
of which is produced in this country. Under the Sherman law we furnish a mar- 


ket for about oae-third of the world's annual product. I believe about one- 
sixth is used in the arts, which would leave about one-half for all the rest of 
the world. India has suspended free coinage temporarily, in anticipation of the 
repeal of the Sherman law. The Herschell report expressly states that the 
action was necessary, because no agreement with the United States could be 
secured. The language is as follows: 

In a dispatch of the 30th of June, 1892, the government of India expressed the 
deliberate opinion that, if it became clear that the Brussels conference was unlikely to 
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, and if a direct agreement between India and the 
United States were found to be unattainable, the government of India should at once 
close their mints to the free coinage of silver snd make arrangements for the Intro- 
duction of the gold standard. 

There is no doubt of the restoration of free coinage in India if this Gov- 
ernment takes the lead, and with India taking the usual amount, but one-sixth 
of the annual supply is left for the other silver-using countries. There can be no 
flood of silver, nor will prices rise to any considerable extent — except the price 
of silver itself and a few of the staple products of agriculture which have fallen 
with silver because of India's competition. General prices cannot rise unless 
the total number of dollars increases more rapidly than the need for dollars, 
which has been shown to be impossible. The danger is, that taking all the gold 
and all the silver, we will not have enough money, and that there will still 
be some appreciation in the standard of value. 

To recapitulate, then, there is not enough of either metal to form the basis 
for the world's metallic money; both metals must therefore be used as full 
legal tender primary money. There is not enough of both metals to more 
than keep pace with the increased demand for money; silver cannot be retained 
in circulation as a part of the world's money if the United States abandons it. 
This nation must, therefore, either retain the present law or make some further 
provision for silver. The only rational plan is to use both gold and silver 
at some ratio with equal privileges at the Mint No change in the ratio can 
be made intelligently until both metals are put on an equality at the present ratio. 
The present ratio should be adopted if the parity can be maintained; and, 
lastly, it can be. 

If these conclusions are correct what must be our action on the bill to un- 
conditionally repeal the Sherman law? The Sherman law has a serious defect; 
it treats silver as a commodity rather than as a money, and thus discriminates 
between silver and gold. The Sherman law was passed in 1890 as a substitute 
for what was known as the Bland law. It will be remembered that the Bland 
law was forced upon the silver men as a compromise, and that the opponents 
of silver sought its repeal from the day it was passed. It will also be remem- 
bered that the Sherman law was in like manner forced upon the silver men as 
a compromise, and that the opponents of silver have sought its repeal ever 
since it became a law. The law provides for the compulsory purchase of 
54,000,000 ounces of silver per year, and for the issue of Treasury notes thereon 
at the gold value of the bullion. 

These notes are a legal tender and are redeemable in gold or silver at the 
option of the Government. There is also a clause in the law which states 
that it is the policy of this Government to maintain the parity between the 
metals. The Administration, it seems, has decided that the parity can only be 



maintained by violating a part of the law and giving the option to the holder 
instead of to the Government Without discussing the administration of the 
law let us consider the charges made against it. 

The main objection which we heard last spring was that the Treasury 
notes were used to draw gold out of the Treasury. If that objection were 
a material one the bill might easily be amended so as to make the Treasury 
notes hereafter issued redeemable only in ^Iver, like the silver certificates 
issued under the Bland law. But the objection is scarcely important enough 
for consideration. While the Treasury notes have been used to draw out gold, 
they need not have been used for that purpose, for we have $346,000,000 worth 
of greenbacks with which gold can be drawn, so long as the Government gives 
the option to the holder. If all of the Treasury notes were destroyed the green 
backs are sufficient to draw out the $100,000,000 reserve three times over, and 
then they can be reissued and used again. To complain of the Treasury notes 
while the greenbacks remain is like finding fault because the gate is open when 
the whole fence is down, and reminds me of the man who made a box for 
his feline family, and cut a big hole for the cat to go in at and a little hole for 
the kittens to go in at, forgetting that the large hole would do for cats 
of all sizes. 

Just at this time the law is being made the scapegoat upon which all our 
financial ills are loaded, and its immediate and unconditional repeal is demanded 
as the sole means by which prosperity can be restored to a troubled people. 

The main accusation against it now is that it destroys confidence and that 
foreign money will not come here, because the holder is afraid that we will 
go to a silver standard. The exportation of gold has been pointed to as 
conclusive evidence that frightened English bondholders were throwing Ameri- 
can securities upon the market and selling them to our people in exchange for 
gold. But now gold is coming back faster than it went away, and still we have 
the Sherman law unrepealed. Since that theory will not explain both the export 
and import of gold, let us accept a theory which will. The balance of trade has 
been largely against us during the last year, and gold went abroad to pay it, 
but now our exportation of breadstufTs has increased and the gold is returning. 
Its going was aggravated by the fact that Austria-Hungary was gathering in 
gold for resumption and was compelled to take a part from us. Instead of 
using that export of gold as a reason for going to a gold basis, it ought to make 
us realize the danger of depending solely upon a metal which some other na- 
tion may deprive us of at a critical moment. 

Mr. Cannon of Illinois. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him? 

Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 

Mr. Cannon of Illinois. I am in complete harmony with what my friend 
is saying now. I ask him if he will allow me to request him not to omit to 
state that in the twelve months ending June 30 last this same balance of trade 
that was against us not only took the gold of the United States, but nearly 
^17.000,000 of silver as well. 

Mr. Bryan. I think the statement made by the gentleman is correct. 

The Sherman law fails utterly to account for present stringency. Let me 
suggest a more reasonable cause for the trouble. Last spring an attempt was 
made to secure the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law. We had no panic 


then, but the same forces which have always opposed any legislation favorable 
to silver demanded that the purchase of bullion should stop. Some who believe 
that 15 per cent, reserve makes a bank safe became frightened lest a 25 or 30 per 
cent, reserve might not be sufficient to make the Government safe, and wanted 
an issue of gold bonds. The great argument used in favor of both these propo- 
sitions was that money was being drawn from the Treasury and sent to Europe; 
that confidence was being destroyed and that a panic would follow. They em- 
phasized and magnified the evils which would follow the departure of gold; 
they worked themselves and their associates into a condition of fright which did 
cause financial stringency. Like the man who innocently gives the alarm of 
fire in a crowded hall, they excited a panic which soon got beyond control. 

The trouble now is that depositors have withdrawn their deposits from the 
banks for fear of loss, and the banks are compelled to draw in their loans to 
protect their reserves, and thus men who do business upon borrowed capital are 
crippled. The people have not lost faith in the Government or in the Govern- 
ment's money. They do not refuse silver or silver certificates. They are glad 
enough to get any kind of money. We were told last spring that gold was 
going to a premium, but recently in New York City men found a profitable 
business in the selling of silver certificates of small denominations at 2 per cent, 
premium, and on the 5th of this month there appeared in the New York Herald 
and the New York Times this advertisement: 

WANTED— SILVER DOLLARS.— We desire to purchaae at a premtum of \ per 
cent., or $7.50 per thousand, standard silver dollars, in sums of |1,000 or more. In return 
for our certified checks payable through the clearing-house. 

ZIMMERMAN & FORSHAT. Bankers, U Wall Street. 

About the same time the New York police force was paid in $20 gold pieces 
because of the scarcity of other kinds of money. How many of the failing 
banks have obeyed the law in regard to reserve? How many have crippled 
themselves by loaning too much to their officers and directors? The situation 
can be stated in a few words: Money cannot be secured to carry on business 
because the banks have no money to loan; banks have no money to loan be- 
cause the depositors have withdrawn their money; depositors have withdrawn 
their money because they fear the solvency of the banks; enterprises are stag- 
nant because money is not in circulation. 

Will a repeal of the Sherman law cure these evils? Can you cure hunger 
by a famine? I know that there are some who tell us that we have plenty of 
money. If I may be pardoned for a personal allusion, their attitude reminds 
me of a remark made by my father-in-law just after he intrusted his daughter 
to my care. "William," said he, laying his hand affectionately on my head, 
"while I have we shall not both want." Others say, "What is the use of having 
more money? We cannot get it unless we have something to sell." That is 
true; but the price of what we sell depends largely upon the amount of money 
in circulation. How can we pay our debts without selling something, and 
how can we sell anything unless there is money in circulation to buy with? 
We need money. The Sherman law supplies a certain amount Will the strin- 
gency be relieved by suspending that issue? If the advocates of repeal would 
take for their battle cry, "Stop issuing money," instead of "Stop buying silver," 
would not their purpose be more plain? But they say the repeal of the law 
will encourage foreign capital to come here by giving assurance that it will be 


repaid on a gold basis. Can we afford to buy confidence at that price? Can 
we afford to abandon the constitutional right to pay in either gold or silver in 
order to borrow foreign gold with the certainty of having to pay it back in 
appreciated dollars? To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the remedy proposed teems 
not only dangerous and absurd, but entirely inadequate. Why try to borrow 
foreign capital in order to induce the people in this country to redeposit their 
savings in the banks? 

Why do not these financiers apply the remedy to the diseased part? If the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hendrix), to whom I listened with pleasure, 
and who said, "I have come into this Hall as a banker, I am here as the presi- 
dent of a national bank," desires to restore confidence, let him propose for the 
consideration of the members a bill to raise, by a small tax upon deposits, a sum 
sufficient to secure depositors against possible loss; or a bill to compel stock- 
holders to put up security for their double liability; or to prevent stockholders 
or officers from wrecking a bank to carry on their private business; or to limit 
the liabilities which a bank can assume upon a given amount of capital, so that 
there will be more margin to protect its creditors; or a bill to make more 
severe the punishment for embezzlement, so that a man can not rob a bank of a 
half million and escape with five years, and can not be boarded at a hotel by a 
marshal, while the small thief suffers in a dungeon. Let him propose some real 
relief and this House will be glad to co-operate with him. 

Or, if there is immediate relief necessary in the increased issue of paper 
money, let our financiers press the suggestion made by the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), viz., that the holders of Government bonds be allowed 
to deposit them and draw the face in Treasury notes by remitting the interest 
and with the power of redeeming the bonds at any time. This will give imme- 
diate relief and will save the Government interest on the bonds while the money 
is out. But no, the only remedy proposed by these financiers at this time, 
when business is at a standstill and when men are suffering unemployed, is a 
remedy which will enable them to both control the currency and reap pecuniary 
profit through its issue. 

One of the benefits of the Sherman law, so far as the currency is concerned, 
is that it compels the issue of a large amount of money annually, and but for 
this issue the present financial panic would, in my judgment, be far more severe 
than it is. That we need an annual increase in the currency is urged by Mr. 
Sherman himself in a speech advocating the passage of the Sherman law. On 
the 5th day of June, 1890, he said in the Senate: 

Under the law of February, 1878, the purchase of $2,000,000 worth of lilver bullion a 
month has by coinage produced annually an average of nearly $3,000,000 per month for 
a period ef twelve yean, but thli amount. In view of the retirement of the bank notes, 
will not increase our currency In proportion to our Increasing population. If our present 
currency Is estimated at $1,400,000,000, and our population Is increasing at the ratio of S 
per cent, per annum. It would require $42,000,000 Increased circulation each year to keep 
pace with the Increase of population; but as the Increase of population Is accompanied by 
a still greater ratio of increase of wealth and business. It was thought that an Immediate 
increase of circulation might be obtained by larger purchases of silver bullion to an 
amount sufficient to make good the requirement of bank notes and keep pace with the 
growtli of population. Assuming that $54,000,000 a year of additional currency Is needed 
upoB this basis, thiit amount Is provided for In this bill by the Issue of Treasury notes 
to ezehango for bullion at the market price. 


This amount, by the fall in the price of bullion silver, has been largely re- 
duced. Shall we wipe it out entirely? He insisted that the Sherman law gave 
to the people more money than the Bland law, and upon that ground its 
passage was defended before the people. Could it have been passed had it 
given less than the Bland law? Who would have dared to defend it if it liad 
provided for no money at all? 

What provision shall be made for the future? Upon that question our 
opponents are silent. The bill which they have proposed leaves us with no 
increased currency provided for. Some of the advocates of a gold standard, 
in the defense of their theory, find it necessary to dispute every well-established 
principle of finance. 

We are told that as civilization increases credit takes the place of money 
and that the volume of real money can be diminished without danger. That 
recalls the experience of the man who conceived the idea that a fish could 
be made to live without water. As the story goes, he put a herring, fresh from 
the sea, in a jar of salt water. By removing a little every morning and adding 
rainwater he gradually accustomed it to fresh water. Then by gradually remov- 
ing the fresh water he accustomed it to air and finally kept it in a cage like a 
bird. One day, in his absence, his servant placed a cup of water in the cage in 
order that the fish might moisten its food; but alas! when the master came 
home he found that the fish had thoughtlessly put its head into the water and 
drowned 1 

From the arguments of some of our opponents we might be led to the 
conclusion that the time would come when money would not only be unneces- 
sary but really dangerous. 

The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether we shall increase our supply of pri- 
mary money, as we do when we increase our gold and silver, or whether we 
shall increase our promises to pay real money, as we do when we increase na- 
tional bank notes. 

Mr. Bland. Will the gentleman permit a suggestion? 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bland. The Treasury notes issued under the law for the purchase of 
the silver bullion are legal tender for all debts, public and private, and not like 
bank notes, mere credit money. 

Mr. Bryan. I understand that. I say they are primary money; although 
if it were construed to mean that they were merely a promise to pay gold, then 
they would be simply credit money to that extent. 

Mr. Bland. The distinction I wish to draw is this, that those Treasury 
notes issued in purchase of silver bullion are legal tender while a bank note is 

Mr. Bryan. And the distinction is a very just one. 

The larger the superstructure of credit, as related to the basis of metal, the 
more ■ unsubstantial our system. If we present a bank note for payment we 
receive a greenback; if we present a greenback for payment, the treasurer has 
a right to pay in silver dollars, and now our opponents want it understood that 
a silver dollar is only a promise to pay a gold dollar. Is that sound money? 

No, Mr. Speaker; if metallic money is sound money, then we who insist 
upon a base broad enough to support a currency redeemable in coin on demand, 
are the real friends of sound money, and those are "dangerous fiatists" who 


would make the metallic base so narrow as to compel the Government to 
abandon it for the preservation of its people. If all the currency is built upon 
the small basis of gold those who hold the gold will be the masters of the situ- 
ation. We have a right to demand that the future financial policy shall be a 
part of the repealing act, so that we may choose between it and what we have 
and reject it if it is less favorable than the present law. And I may add in the 
language adopted by the bimetallic league a few days ago— 

The refusal of the exponents of bimetalliim to propose any substitute for the present 
law, or to elaborate any plan for the future, Indicates either an ignorance of our financial 
needs or an unwillingness to take the public into their confidence. 

But, sir, more serious than any other objection which can be made to the 
unconditional repeal of the Sherman law is the incontrovertible fact that a 
suspension of silver would tend to lower the price of silver bullion and thus 
make the restoration of bimetallism more difficult. That this will be the effect 
is proven not only by reason but by the utterances of Mr. Herscheirs com- 
mittee in discussing the finances of India. That report says: 

In December last, a bill was introduced in the Senate to repeal the Sherman act, 
and another to suspend purchases under it. Whether any such measures will pass into 
law it is impossible to foretell, but it must be regarded as possible; and although. In 
the light of past experience, predictions on such a subject must bo made with caution. 
It is certainly probable that the repeal of the Sherman act would be followed by a heary 
fall in the price of silver. 

The first question for us to decide then is, are we in favor of bimetallism 
or a universal gold standard? If we are in favor of bimetallism, the next 
question is will a fall in the bullion price of silver as measured by gold help 
or hinder bimetallism? We are told by those who want a gold standard that 
it will help bimetallism; but the query is, if it would, "why do they favor it?" 
It is sufficient to arouse suspicion when every advocate of gold monometallism 
favors unconditional repeal, and the more emphatic his advocacy of gold the 
more earnest his desire for repeal. Is any subsequent legislation in behalf of 
silver intended? If so, why not propose it now? What money loaner, loan- 
ing upon a mortgage, would be willing to let the money go upon a promise 
that the mortgage should be delivered next week? Or what business man would 
cancel an obligation today on the promise of having the money paid tomorrow? 
Shall we be more careless in protecting the sacred interests of our constituencies 
than a business man is in transacting his business? 

What excuse can we give to our people for releasing what we have with 
the expectation of getting something in the future when the advocates of 
repeal boldly demand, upon this floor, the adoption of a universal gold 
standard, and predict that its coming is as certain as the rising of tomorrow's 
sun. Read the utterances of these leaders in the crusade against silver. Read 
the famous article of the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Cockran). Read the article in the Forum of last FebriJary, from the pen of 
Hon. George Fred Williams, who, in the last Congress, spoke for those de- 
manding unconditional repeal: 

In the efTorts which have thus far been made towards a repeal, a single question 
has been repeated by the silver men so often as to give a plain indication to the situation. 
What, it is asked, do you propose to put in place of silver purchases? There never was 
a time more opportune to answer definitely this question with the single word, nothing. 


Let me join issue upon this question, and say that the time will never come 
in this country when that word "nothing" will be accepted as a satisfactory 

They tell us that our platform demands repeal, but does it demand repeal 
only? Shall we take away the "cowardly makeshift" before we restore the 
real thing for which that "temporary expedient" was substituted? As well de- 
nounce one kind of food because it lacks nourishment and then refuse all food 
to the patient. They shall not be permitted to thus mutilate the platform. No 
such inexcusable attempt at garbling has been witnessed since the minister 
took from the sentence "Let him which is on the house-top not come down to 
take anything out of his house" the words "topnot come down," and inveighed 
against the feminine habit of wearing the hair in a knot on the top of the head. 
They demand of us unconditional repeal. They demand that we give up all 
that we have in the way of silver legislation before we know what we are to 
receive. Shall we surrender on these terms? 

Rollin tells us that the third Punic war was declared by the Romans and 
that a messenger was sent to Carthage to announce the declaration after the 
army had started on its way. The Carthaginians at once sent representatives 
to treat for peace. The Romans first demanded the delivery of three hundred 
hostages before they would enter into negotiations. When three hundred 
sons of the nobles had been given into their hands they demanded the sur- 
render of all the arms and implements of war before announcing the terms 
of the treaty. The conditions were sorrowfully but promptly complied with, 
and the people who boasted of a Hannibal and a Hamilcar gave up to their 
ancient enemies every weapon of offense and defense. Then the Roman consul, 
rising up before the humiliated representatives of Carthage, said: 

I cannot but commend you for the readiness with which you have obeyed every order. 
The decree of the Roman Senate is that Carthage shall be destroyed. 

Sirs, what will be the answer of the people whom you represent, who are 
wedded to the "gold and silver coinage of the Constitution," if you vote for 
unconditional repeal and return to tell them that you were commended for the 
readiness with which you obeyed every order, but that Congress has decreed 
that one-half of the people's metallic money shall be destroyed? 

They demand unconditional surrender, do they? Why, sirs, we are the 
ones to grant terms. Standing by the pledges of all the parties in this country, 
backed by the history of a hundred years, sustained by the most sacred interests 
of humanity itself, we demand an unconditional surrender of the principle of 
gold monometallism as the first condition of peace. You demand surrender! 
Ay, sirs, you may cry "Peace, peace," but there is no peace. Just so long as 
there are people here who would chain this country to a single gold standard, 
there is war— eternal war; and it might just as well be known now! I have said 
that we stand by the pledges of all platforms. Let me quote them: 

The Populist platform adopted by the national convention in 1892 con- 
tained these words: 

We denuind free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the present legal ratio 
of 16 to 1. 

As the members of that party, both in the Senate and in the House, stand 

ready to carry out the pledge there made, no appeal to them is necessary. 


The Republican national platform adopted in 1888 contains this plank: 

The Republican party Is In favor of the use of both gold and silver as money and 
condemns the policy of the Democratic administration In Its efforts to demonetize silver. 

The same party in 1892 adopted a platform containing the following 

The American people from tradition and Interest favor bimetallism, and the Repub- 
lican party demands the use of both gold and silver as standard money, such restrictions 
to be determined by contemplation of values of the two metals, so that the purchasing 
and debt-paying power of the dollar, whether of silver, gold, or paper, shall be equal at 
all times. 

The interests of the producers of the country, Its farmers and Its workingmen, 
demand that every dollar, paper or gold. Issued by the Government, shall be as good as any 
other. We commend the wise and patriotic steps already taken by our Government to 
secure an International parity of value between gold and silver for use as money 
throughout the world. 

Are the Republican members of this House ready to abandon the system 
which the American people favor "from tradition and interest?" Having won 
m Presidential election upon a platform which condemned "the policy of the 
Democratic administration in its efforts to demonetize silver," are they ready 
to join in that demonetization? Having advocated the Sherman law because it 
gave an increased use of silver, are they ready to repeal it and make no provi- 
sions for silver at all? Are they willing to go before the country confessing 
that they secured the present law by sharp practice, and only adopted it as an 
ingenious device for preventing free coinage, to be repealed as soon as the 
hour of danger was passed? 

The Democratic platform of 1880 contained these words; 

Honest money, consisting of gold and silver, and paper converUble Into coin on de- 

It would seem that at that time silver was honest money, although the 
bullion value was considerably below the coinage value. 

In 1884 the Democratic platform contained this plank: 

We believe In honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and 
a circulating medium convertible Into such money without loss. 

It would seem that at that time silver was considered honest money. 

In 1888 the Democratic party did not express itself on the money question 

except by saying: 

It renewed tbe pledge of Its fidelity to Democratic faith, and reaffirms the platform 
adopted by Its representatives In the convention of 18S4. 

Since the platform of 1884 commended silver as an honest money, we must 
assume that the reaffirming of that platform declared anew that silver was 
honest money as late as 1888, although at that time its bullion value had fallen 
still more. 

The last utterance of a Democratic national convention upon this subject 

is contained in the platform adopted at Chicago in 1892. It is as follows: 

We denounce the Republican legislation known as the Sherman act of 1890 as a 
cowardly makeshift, fraught with possibilities of danger In the future, which should make 
all Its supporters, as well as Its author, anxious for Its speedy repeal. We hold to the 
use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the country, and to the coinage 
of both gold and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage, 
but the dollar unit of coinage of both metals must be of equal intrinsic and exchange- 
able value or be adjusted through International agreement, or by such safeguards of legis- 
lation aa shall Insure the maintenance of the parity of the two metals, and the equal 


power of every dollar at all times In the markets and In the payment of debts; and we 
demand that all paper currency shall be kept at par with and redeemable In such coin. 
We insist upon this policy as especially necessary for the protection of the farmers and 
laboring: classes, the first and most defenseless victims of unstable money and a fluctuating 

Thus it will be seen that gold and silver have been indissolubly linked 
together in our platforms. Never in the history of the party has it taken 
a position in favor of a gold standard. On every vote taken in the House 
and Senate a majority of the party have been recorded not only in favor 
of bimetsAlism, but for the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver 
at the ratio of i6 to i. 

The last platform pledges us to the use of both metals as standard money 
and to the free coinage of both metals at a fixed ratio. Does any one believe 
that Mr. Cleveland could have been elected President upon a platform de- 
claring in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law? Can 
we go back to our people and tell them that, after denouncing for twenty years 
the crime of 1873, we have at last accepted it as a blessing? Shall bimetallism 
received its deathblow in the House of its friends, and in the very Hall where 
innumerable vows have been registered in its defense? What faith can be 
placed in platforms if their pledges can be violated with impunity? Is it right 
to rise above the power which created us? Is it patriotic to refuse that legisla- 
tion in favor of gold and silver which a majority of the people have always 
demanded? Is it necessary to betray all parties in order to treat this subject 
in a "nonpartisan" way? 

The President has recommended unconditional repeal. It is not suffi- 
cient to say that he is honest — so were the mothers, who, with misguided zeal 
threw their children into the Ganges. The question is not "Is he honest?" but 
*'Is he right?" He won the confidence of the toilers of this country because 
he taught that "public office is a public trust," and because he convinced them 
of his courage and his sincerity. But are they willing to say, in the language 
of Job, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him?" Whence comes this 
irresistible demand for unconditional repeal? Are not the representatives here 
as near to the people and as apt to know their wishes? Whence comes the 
demand? Not from the workshop and the farm, not from the workingmcn of 
this country, who create its wealth in time of peace and protect its flag in time 
of war, but from the middle-men, from what are termed the "business interests," 
and largely from that class which can force Congress to let it issue money at a 
pecuniary profit to itself if silver is abandoned. The President has been de- 
ceived. He can no more judge the wishes of the great mass of our people by 
the expressions of these men than he can measure the ocean's silent depths 
by the foam upon its waves. 

Mr. Powderly, who spoke at Chicago a few days ago in favor of the free 
coinage of silver at the present ratio and against the unconditional repeal of 
the Sherman law, voiced the sentiment of more laboring men than have ever 
addressed the President or this House in favor of repeal. Go among the 
agricultural classes; go among the poor, whose little is as precious to them as 
the rich man's fortune is to him, and whose families are as dear, and you will 
not find the haste to destroy the issue of money or the unfriendliness to silver 
which is manifested in money centers. 


This question can not be settled by typewritten recommendations and sug- 
gestions made by boards of trade and sent broadcast over the United States. 
It can only be settled by the great mass of the voters of this country who stand 
like the Rock of Gibraltar for the use of both gold and silver. 

There are thousands, yes, tens of thousands, aye, even millions, who have 

not yet "bowed the knee to Baal." Let the President take courage. Muehl- 

bach relates an incident in the life of the great military hero of France. At 

Marengo the Man of Destiny, sad and disheartened, thought the battle lost. 

He called to a drummer boy and ordered him to beat a retreat. The lad replied: 

81r». I do not know how. Desuilz hai never taught me retreat, but I can beat a 
chars** Oh, I can beat a charge that would make the dead fall into line! I beat 
that chana at the Bridge of Lodi; I beat It at Mount Tabor; I beat it at the Pyramidi. 
Oh, may I beat it here7 

The charge was ordered, the battle won, and Marengo was added to the 
victories of Napoleon. Oh, let our gallant leader draw inspiration from the 
street gamin of Paris. In the face of an enemy proud and confident the 
President has wavered. Engaged in the battle royal between the "money 
power and the common people'' he has ordered a retreat. Let him not be 

He has won greater victories than Napoleon, for he is a warrior who 
lias conquered without a sword. He restored fidelity in the public service; he 
converted Democratic hope into realization; he took up the banner of tariff re- 
form and carried it to triumph. Let him continue that greater fight for "the 
gold and silver coinage of the Constitution," to which three national plat- 
forms have pledged him. Let his clarion voice call the party hosts to arms; 
let him but speak the language of the Senator from Texas, in reply to those 
who would destroy the use of silver: 

In thia hour fraught with peril to the whole country, I appeal to the unpur- 
ehaaad repreaentatlTea of the American people to meet thli bold and insolent denutad 
like men. Let ua stand in the breach and call the battle on and never leave the 
field until the people's money shall be restored to the mints on equal terms with 
gold, as it waa years ago. 

Let this command be given, and the air will resound with the tramp of men 
scarred in a score of battles for the people's rights. Let this command be 
given and this Marengo will be our glory and not onr shame. 

Well has it been said by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Vest) that we 
have come to the parting of the ways. Today the Democratic party stands 
between two great forces, each inviting its support. On the one side stand the 
corporate interests of the nation, its moneyed institutions, its aggregations of 
wealth and capital, imperious, arrogant, compassionlcss. They demand special 
legislation, favors, privileges, and immunities. They can subscribe magnifi- 
cently to campaign funds; they can strike down opposition with their all- 
pervading influence, and, to those who fawn and flatter, bring ease and plenty. 
They demand that the Democratic party shall become their agent to execute 
their merciless decrees. 

On the other side stands that unnumbered throng which gave a name to the 
Democratic party, and for which it has assumed to speak. Work-worn 
and dust-begrimed, they make their sad appeal. They hear of average wealth 
increased on every side and feel the inequality of its distribution. They see an 



over-production of everything desired because of the underproduction of the 
ability to buy. They can not pay for loyalty except with their suffrages, and 
can only punish betrayal with their condemnation. Although the ones who 
most deserve the fostering care of Government, their cries for help too often 
beat in vain against the outer wall, while others less deserving find ready access 
to legislative halls. 

This army, vast and daily growing, begs the party to be its champion 
in the present conflict. It cannot press its claims 'mid sounds of revelry. Its 
phalanxes do not form in grand parade, nor has it gaudy banners floating on 
the breeze. Its battle hymn is *'Home, Sweet Home," its war cry "equality 
before the law." To the Democratic party, standing between these two irrec- 
oncilable forces, uncertain to which side to turn, and conscious that upon its 
choice its fate depends, come the words of Israel's secpnd lawgiver: "Choose 
you this day whom ye will serve." What will the answer be? Let me invoke 
the memory of him whose dust made sacred the soil of Monticello when he 


Tho dead but sceptered sovereigns who still rule 

Our spirits from their urns. 

He was called a demagogue and his followers a mob, but the immortal 
Jefferson dared to follow the best promptings of his heart. He placed man 
above matter, humanity above property, and, spurning the bribes of wealth and 
power, pleaded the cause of the common people. It was this devotion to their 
interests which made his party invincible while he lived and will make his name 
revered while history endures. And what message comes to us from the 
Hermitage? When a crisis like the present arose and the national bank of his 
day sought to control the politics of the nation, God raised up an Andrew 
Jackson, who had the courage to grapple with that great enemy, and by over- 
throwing it, he made himself the idol of the people and reinstated the Demo- 
cratic party in public confidence. What will the decision be today. The Demo- 
cratic party has won the greatest success in its history. Standing upon this 
victory-crowned summit, will it turn its face to the rising or the setting sun? 
Will it choose blessings or cursings — life or death — which? Which? 

The bill passed the House by a considerable majority and after 
nearly two months of debate in the Senate, came back to the House 
with an amendment. 

On Nov. 1st, 1893, I again spoke on this question: 

Third Speech Against Unconditional RepeaL 

Mr. Speaker: Nothing that can be said at this time will affect the fate 
of this bill, but those gentlemen who vote for it should do so with a full 
and clear understanding of what they are doing. We have been told, sir, 
that the Democratic platform adopted in 1892 demanded the unconditional 
repeal of the Sherman law. No person has brought into this House a single 
platform utterance which will bear out that assertion. The platform does 
pot even demand repeal, not to speak of unconditional repeal. It says: 
"We denounce the Republican legislation known as the Sherman act of 1890 
as a cowardly makeshift fraught with possibilities of danger in the future. 



which should make all of its supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its 
speedy repeal." Its author does seem to be *'anxious for its speedy repeal," 
and in this desire many of its supporters join with him; but why should a 
Democratic Congress secure that repeal without first restoring, at least, the 
law which the Sherman law repealed? Then, too, the denunciation contained 
in the platform is directed against the whole law, not simply against the pur- 
chase clause. Yet we are urged to support this bill for the unconditional 
repeal of the purchase clause only as a Democratic measure. What is the his- 
tory of this bill? It is identical in purpose and almost identical in language 
with a bill introduced by Senator Sherman July 14, 1892. 

To show the similarity between the bill introduced then by Senator Sher- 
man and the bill introduced since by Mr. Wilson, I place the two bills in parallel 

Fifty-second Conffress, first session. S. 
3423, Introduced In the Senate July 14, 
1S92, by Mr. Sherman. 
A bill for the repeal of certain parts of 
the act directing the purchase of silver 
bullion and the issue of Treasury notes 
thereon, and for other purposes, ap- 
proved July 14, 1890. 

Be It enacted by the Senate and House 
of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled. That 
so much of the act entitled "An act di- 
recting the purchase of silver bullion and 
the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and 
for other purposes," approved July 14. 
1S90, as directs the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury to purchase, from time to time, silver 
bullion to the aggregate amount of 4,500,- 
000 ounces, or so much thereof as may 
be offered in each month, at the market 
price thereof, and to issue in payment for 
such purchases of silver bullion Treasury 
notes of the United States is hereby re- 
pealed, to take effect on the 1st day of 
January, 1893: Provided, That this act 
shall not in any way affect or impair or 
change the legal qualities, redemption or 
use of the Treasury notes Issued under 
said act. 

Fifty-third Congress, first stssioa. H. R. 
1, i.itroduced in the House August 11, 
1893. by Mr. Wilson. 
A bill to repeal a part of an act, ap- 
proved July 14, 1890. entitled "An aot 
directing the purchase of silver bullion 
and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, 
and for other purposes." 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House 
of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled. That 
so much of the act approved July 14, 1890, 
entitled "An act directing the purchase •f 
silver bullion and issue of Treasury notes 
thereon, and for other purposes." as di- 
rects the Secretary of the Treasury to 
purchase, from time to time, silver bul- 
lion to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 
ounces, or so much thereof as may be of- 
fered in each month, at the market price 
thereof, not exceeding |1 for 371.26 grains 
of pure silver, and to issue in payment 
for such purchases Treasury notes of the 
United States, be, and the same is hereby 
repealed: but this repeal shall not im- 
pair or in any manner affect the legal- 
tender quality of the standard silver dol- 
lars heretofore coined; and the faith and 
credit of the United States are hereby 
pledged to maintain the parity of the 
standard gold and silver coins of the 
United States at the present legal ratio, 
or such other ratio as may be established 
by law. 

Does the Senator from Ohio originate Democratic measures? 

The gentlemen who favor this bill may follow the leadership of Senator 
Sherman and call it Democratic; but until he is converted to true principles 
of finance I shall not follow him, nor will I apply to his financial policy the 
name of Democracy or honesty. The Wilson bill passed the House, but a ma- 
jority of the Democrats voted in favor of substituting the Bland law in the plact 
of the Sherman law before they voted for unconditional repeal, showing that 



they were not for unconditional repeal until Republican votes had deprived 
them of that which they preferred to unconditional repeal, namely, the Bland 
law. When the bill in its present form was reported to the Senate, four of the 
Democratic members of the Finance Committee opposed the bill and only two 
Democrats favored it. When the bill passed the Senate, twenty-two Democrats 
were recorded in favor of the bill and twenty-two against it, and that, too, in 
spite of the fact that every possible influence was brought to bear to secure 
Democratic support for the measure. Before a vote was reached thirty-seven 
Democratic Senators agreed to a compromise, so that this bill does not come 
to us expressing the free and voluntary desire of the Democratic party. 

Not only does unconditional repeal fail to carry out the pledge made in the 
last national platform, but it disregards the most important part of the financial 
plank, in not redeeming the promise to maintain "the coinage of both gold and 
silver, without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage." 
That promise meant something. It was a square declaration in favor of bimet- 
allism. The tail to this bill, added in the Senate as an amendment, pretends 
to promise a future fulfillment of platform pledges. We are not here to prom- 
ise, but to fulfill. We are not here to renew platform pledges, but to carry them 
out But even if it were our duty to postpone bimetallism and record another 
promise, the Senate amendment does not contain the vital words of the financial 
plank. The Senate amendment eliminates from the platform the important 
declaration in favor of "the coinage of both gold and silver without discrimina- 
tion against either metal or charge for mintage." To show the important dif- 
ference between the Senate amendment and that part of our platform, I arrange 
them in parallel columns: 


We hold to the use of both gold and 
■ilver as the standard money of the coun- 
try, and to the coinage of both gold and 
silver without discrimination against 
either metal or charge for mintage, but 
the dollar unit of coinage of both metals 
must be of equal intrinsic and exchange- 
able value or be adjusted through inter- 
national agreement, or by such safe 
guards of legislation as shall insure the 
maintenance of the parity of the two met- 
als and the equal power of every dollar 
at all times In the markets and in the 
payment of all debts. 


And it is hereby declared to be the pol- 
icy of the United States to continue the 
use of both gold and silver as standard 
money, and to coin both gold and silver 
into money of equal intrinsic and ex- 
changeable value, such equality to be se- 
cured through international agreement, 
or by such safeguards of legislation as 
will insure the maintenance of the parity 
ia value of the coins of the two metals 
and the equal power of every dollar at 
all times in the markets and in the pay- 
ment of debts. And it is hereby further 
declared that the efforts of the Govern- 
ment should be steadily directed to the 
establishment of such safe system of bi- 
metallism as will maintain at all times 
the equal power of every dollar coined or 
Issued by the United SUtes. in the mar- 
kets and in the payment of debts. 

Were those important words striken out by intention or was it simply an 
oversight? No, Mr. Speaker, those words were purposely left out because 
those who are behind the bill never intend to carry out the Democratic plat- 
(prm; and if we can judge their purpose by their acts, those who prepared the 
platform never intended when it was written that it should be fulfilled after it 
had secured the suffrage of the American people. 


When they had a strike at Homestead some time ago they used force to 
remedy what they considered their grievances. We said then that the hallot, 
not the bullet, was the means by which the American people redressed their 
grievances. What shall we say now when people elected upon a platform and 
pledged to a principle disregard those pledges when they come to the legislative 
halls? It is a blow at representative government which we cannot afford to 
give. We are not sent here because we know more than others and can think 
for them. We are sent here to carry out the wishes, to represent the interests, 
and to protect the rights of those who sent us. What defense can we make if 
this bill is passed? It is not demanded by the people; the farmers and laborers 
who constitute the great bulk of our people have never asked for it; those who 
speak for their organizations have never prayed for it. 

So far as the laborer has been heard from, he has denounced unconditional 
repeal; so far as the farmer has been heard from, he has denounced uncondi- 
tional repeal. Who gave the eastern capitalists the right to speak for these 
men. It is a contest between the producers of wealth and those who exchange 
or absorb it. We have heard a great deal about business interests and business 
men demanding repeal. Who are the business men? Are not those entitled to 
that name who are engaged in the production of the necessaries of life? Is the 
farmer less a business man than the broker, because the former spends three 
hundred and sixty-five days in producing a crop which will not bring him 
over a dollar a day for his labor, while the latter can make ten times the farmer's 
annual income in one successful bet on the future price of the farmer's product? 
I protest, Mr. Speaker, against the use of the name business men in such a 
way as to exclude the largest and most valuable class of business men in the 
country. Unconditional repeal stops the issue of money. With this law gone, 
no more silver certificates can be issued, and no more silver bought. There 
is no law to provide for the issue of greenbacks. We must rely for our addi- 
tional currency upon our share of the limited supply of gold, and the bank 
notes which national banks may find it profitable to issue. 

Does anybody deny that our currency must increase as our population 
increases and as our need for money increases? Does any one believe that our 
need for money can be supplied without affirmative legislation? Is it any 
more wise to destroy the present means for increasing our currency before a 
new plan is adopted than it would be to repeal the McKinlcy tariff act without 
putting some other revenue measure in its place? Our platform says: "We de- 
nounce the McKinley tariff law enacted by the Fifty-first Congress as the cul- 
minating atrocity of class legislation," and "we promise its repeal as one of 
the beneficent results that will follow the action of the people in intrusting 
power to the Democratic party." We also demanded a tariff for revenue only. 
Is there any more reason for separating the repeal of the Sherman law from the 
enactment of bimetallic legislation than there is for separating the repeal of 
the McKinley bill from the enactment of a "tariff for revenue only" measure? 
Having harmonized with Mr. Sherman, shall we proceed to harmonize with 
Mr. McKinley? There are many Republicans who tell us now that the pros- 
pect of tariff reduction has destroyed confidence to a greater extent than the 
Sherman law has. 

In order to avoid another manufacturer's panic will it be necessary to 


abandon another tenet of the Democratic faith and give up all hope of tariff 
reduction? Unconditional repeal will make it more difficult to restore free 
bimetallic coinage. It cannot aid bimetallism without disappointing the dear- 
est hopes of those gentlemen who are most active in its support. If it were 
not so serious a matter it would be interesting to note the mortification which 
must come either to the gold supporters or to the silver supporters of un- 
conditional repeal. They are working in perfect harmony to secure 
exactly opposite results by means of this bill. Who will be deceived? This 
is only the first step. It will be followed by an effort to secure an issue of 
bonds to maintain gold payments. Senator Sherman, the new prophet of 
Democracy, has already stated that bonds must be issued, and we know that 
last spring the whole pressure of the monied interest was brought to bear to 
secure an issue of bonds then. Do you say that Congress would not dare to 
authorize the increase of the public debt in time of peace? What is there that 
this Congress may not dare to do after it has given its approval to the iniquitous 
measure now before us? 

It has also been suggested that the silver dollars now on hand be limited 
in their legal-tender qualities. We need not be surprised if this suggestion 
assumes real form in attempted legislation. It has already been proposed to 
increase the circulation of national banks and thus approve of a policy which 
our party has always denounced. But we need be surprised at nothing now. 
The party can never undergo a more complete transformation upon any ques- 
tion than it has upon the silver question, if the representatives really reflect 
the sentiments of those who sent them here. We have been told of the great 
blessings which are to follow unconditional repeal. Every rise in stocks has 
been paraded as a forerunner of coming prosperity. I have taken occasion to 
examine the quotations on one of the staple products of the farm, and in order 
to secure a basis for calculation, I have taken wheat for December delivery. 

I give below the New York quotations on December wheat, taken from the 
New York Price Current. The quotations are for the first day of the months 
of June, July, August, September, October and October 30, or as near those 
dates as could be gathered from the Price Current, which is published about 
twice a week: 

June 1, December wheat, 8394* 

(Special session called June 30, to meet August 7.) 

July 1, December wheat, 81%. 

August 1, December wheat, 75. 

(Congress convened August 7.) 

September 1. December wheat, 74%. 

(Senate debate continuing.) 

October 1, December wheat, 74%. 

((Compromise abandoned and repeal assured about October 23.) 

October 30, December wheat, 71%. 

(UncondiUonal repeal passed Senate evening of October 30.) 

October 31, December wheat (post -marked report), 69%. 

The following is an extract from the market report touching the general 

situation in New York and the grain market in Chicago. The report appears 

in the morning issue of the Washington Post, November i. 

Big Scramble to Sell— The Change of Sentiment was a Surprise to the Street— London 
Began the Raid— Those Who Believed the Passage of the Repeal Bill Would Lead 


to HeAT7 BuTing Ordert, and Had Purchased for a Rise, Alsa Turned Sellers 
and Sacrificed Their Holdingsr-Rallled a Little as the Market Closed— The Busi- 
ness on 'Chance. 

New Tork, Oct SL 
Yesterday's TOte by the Senate repealing the Sherman silver lay did not have 
the effect on the stock market that the bulls expected. Is the first place, London 
cabled orders to sell Tarious stocks, much to the disappointment of local operators, 
who were confident that the action of the Senate would result in a fiood of buying 
orders. The liquidations for foreign account induced selling by operators who had 
added to their lines on the belief that the repeal of the silver purchase act would 
instantaneously bring about a boom. 

When it was seen that instead of buying the outside public was disposed to sell 
the weak-kneed bulls tried to get out 

Chicago, October 31. 

Wheat was very weak throughout the entire session today. The opening was 
about 1 cent per bushel lower than the closing figures of Saturday, became weak, and 
after some minor fiuctuatlons prices further declined 1"% to 2, then held steady, and 
the closing was 2H to 2% lower than the last prices of Saturday. There was some 
surprise at the course of the market, which became consternation, and at one time 
amounted almost to a panic, when little or no reaction appeared and the price con- 
tinued to sink. The fact of the matter was that traders were loaded with wheat 
and were merely waiting for the opportunity to sell. The bulge toward the end of 
last week gave them this chance and they were quick to take advantage of it. The 
silver repeal bill having been discounted for several days had little or no effect in 
the matter of sustaining prices. New York stocks were weak and much lower and 
this speculative feeling was communicated to wheat. New Yorkers who have seen 
the big bulls for so long were selling today, and It was said that there were numerous 
orders from abroad on that side of the market 

Com was dull, the range being within three-eighths of a cent limit The tone 
was steady and at times an undertone of firmness was noticeable, although prices did 
not show any essential changes. The accumulations of cash corn during the past 
three days were the cause of a somewhat liberal offering of futures early, but after 
a time they became light and the market dull. The oponing was at a decline of ^ to 
%. but on a good demand an advance of % was made, receding % to H later, and 
closing ^ to % under the final figures of Saturday. 

Oats were featureless, but the feeling was steady. There was very little trading 
and price changes were within ^ cent limit, the closing being i^ below Saturday. 

From the statement given it will appear that wheat has fallen more than 
14 cents a bushel since the beginning of the month in which President Cleveland 
issued his call for the extra session. The wheat crop for 1892 was about 
500,000,000 bushels. A fall of i cent in price means a loss of $5,000,000 on the 
crop if those figures can be taken for this year's crop. Calculated upon 
December wheat the loss since June i has been over $70,000,000. or one-sixth 
of its value at the beginning of the decline. The fall of 2 cents on yesterday 
alone, after the repeal bill passed the Senate and its immediate passage in the 
House was assured, amounted to $10,000,000. The fall yesterday in wheat, corn, 
and oats calculated upon a year's crop amounted to more than $17,000,000. Are 
these the first fruits of repeal? Wall street was terribly agitated at the prospect 
of a slight reduction in the gold reserve. Will they take notice of this tre- 
mendous reduction in the farmer's reserve? The market report above quoted 

Yesterday's vote by the Senate repealing the Sherman silver law did not have 
the effect on the stock market that the bulls expected. In the first place London 
cablad ordars to sell various stocks, much to the disappointment of local operators, 
who ir«r« confident that the action of the Senate would result in a fiood of baying orders. 


Is it possible that instead of money flowing to us,' it is going to flow away 
in spite of repeal? The argument most persistently made by the advocates of 
repeal was that money would at once flow to this country from Europe and 
relieve us of our stringency in the money market. The business centers 
became impatient because the Senate insisted upon a thorough discussion. 
Some of the papers even suggested that the Senate ought to be abolished because 
it stood in the way of the restoration of confidence. Finally the opposition was 
worn out, the bill was passed, just as the metropolitan press demanded, and 
behold it is greeted in the market by a general decline. We may now expect 
to hear that the vague, indefinite, and valueless tail added in the Senate as an 
amendment has prevented returning confidence, and that it is our highest duty 
to repeal the caudal appendage of the Wilson bill, just as the repeal of the 
purchase clause of the Sherman law was demanded. For twenty years we have 
denounced the demonetiration act of 1873, ^nd yet we are now prepared with 
our eyes open, fully conscious of what we are doing, to perpetrate the same 
crime. We leave silver just where it was left then, except that there was 
provision then for trade dollars which this bill does not contain. You may 
assume the responsibility, I shall not. 

The line of battle is laid down. The President's letter to Governor 
Northen expresses his opposition to the free and unlimited coinage of silver 
by this country alone. Upon that issue the next Congressional contest will 
be fought Are we dependent or independent as a nation? Shall we legislate 
for ourselves or shall we beg some foreign nation to help us provide for the 
financial wants of our own people? 

Wc need not fear the result of such a contest The patriotism of the 
American people is not yet gone, and we can confidently await their decision. 

I attempted to prevent a vote by making dilatory motions, not in the 
hope of preventing the passage of the bill but for the purpose of driving 
the majority to secure repeal without any concession, real or apparent, 
on the part of the friends of free silver. There were but few, however, 
who were willing to engage in obstruction and when action could be no 
longer delayed, I obtained the floor and placed on record the following: 

Final Protest Against Unconditional Repeat 

Mr. Speaker, when this question came up today, on the motion of the 
gentleman from West Virginia, a demand for the previous question was made 
at the time the main question was submitted. There were some of us who 
believed that those in favor of the bill should take all of the responsibility, and 
provide all of the means for its passage through this body. In our opinion 
it is a measure fraught with infinite possibilities for mischief if not remedied 
by subsequent legislation. 

We have believed it would bring to this country more of misery, as some 
one has said, "than war, pestilence, and famine;" and feeling impressed with 
the importance of the measure to our peop we felt justified in exercising every 
parliamentary right given to us under the ules of the House to prevent its 
passage. We have seen those who believed with us in the Senate stand up for 


two months protesting against the passage of the measure and in opposition 
to what we consider a crhne. We saw them refusing within two hours of the 
time when the vote was finally taken to consent to allow a vote. We saw them 
insisting that those who favored the measure should pass it without any 
shadow of consent from its opponents. 

This proceeding is not new. This House has time and again, on im- 
portant questions, seen the minority refuse to take any part in the proceedings 
or aid in any manner to pass through the House measures to which they were 
conscientiously opposed They have even refused to vote, so that those in favor 
of the proposition might be compelled to make a quorum of their own mem- 
bers. It was our desire to compel those in favor of the bill to use every means 
in their power to carry out the purpose in view, so that there should be hereafter 
no chance for any one to assert that we had yielded one inch in our opposition 
to the measure and thereby permitted it to become a law. 

I made dilatory motions and intended to do so until the Committee on 
Rules brought in a rule, and the House adopted it, making it impossible to 
carry such proceedings any further. I was on my feet, and I thought in time, 
to make a dilatory motion when the demand for the previous question was 
submitted by the Chair. I found that there were too few of those who were 
opposed to the measure willing to join in dilatory opposition to the extent 
even of calling for the yeas and nays. 

Realizing that there are too few of us in the opposition who are willing 
to longer delay a vote, we believe it is useless to carry our opposition further. 
If I thought that refusing to vote would compel the friends of the measure 
to bring a quorum here, and that by so refusing I could prevent the passage of 
this bill or delay it, carrying out what I believe to be my duty to my 
constituents, I would gladly refuse to vote and would gladly do anything else 
in my power to prevent the perpetration of what I believe to be a crime 
against the people. 

Having said this much, Mr. Speaker, and explained why I will not carry 
dilatory tactics further, I simply desire to add, in conclusion, that if we are 
right in the opposition we have made to this bill time will vindicate the correct- 
ness of our position. I hope that we are wrong. I hope that the influences 
back of the measure are not what we believe them to be. I hope its purposes 
are better than we think they are. I hope that this legislation will be far more 
beneficial to the people of this country than we can believe it will be. If we are 
right, and the bill now about to be passed produces the misfortunes which we 
believe will follow its enactment, I warn the people responsible for its passage 
that there will be a day of reckoning. 

You may think that you have buried the cause of bimetallism; you may 
congratulate yourselves that you have laid the free coinage of silver away in a 
sepulchre, newly made since the election, and before the door rolled the veto 
stone. But, sirs, if our cause is just, as I believe it is, your labor has been in 
vain; no tomb was ever made so strong that it could imprison a righteous cause. 
Silver will lay aside its grave clothes and its shroud. It will yet rise and in 
its rising and its reign will bless mankind. 



WHILE the repeal bill was under discussion in the Senate, I 
visited Nebraska as a delegate to the Democratic State Con- 
vention which met at Lincoln on the 4th of October, 1893. 
Outside of my own District (nearly every county of which sent silver 
delegates) no organized fight was made by the silver Democrats to con- 
trol the Convention and when I reached Lincoln I found a large ma- 
jority of the Convention favorable to the President's financial policy. 
Not only was there a strong majority in favor of the President's policy, 
but nearly, if not quite, half of the delegates to the Convention were 
willing to assist the President in carrying out his policy to the extent 
of filling Nebraska's quota of the Federal offices. I was selected by the 
delegates from my own District as their member of the Committee on 
Resolutions, but the chairman of the Convention, Hon. T. J. Mahoney 
of Omaha, then a candidate for United States District Attorney, in 
deference to the wishes of the Administration Democrats, refused to 
appoint me. One silver Democrat, Mr. Robert Clegg, was made a 
member of the Committee, however, and presented the following mi- 
nority plank on the silver question : 

We are opposed to the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law and de- 
mand that the repealing act shall carry out the remainder of the plank in the 
National Democratic platform of 1892 and provide for the ''coinage of both gold 
and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage." 

By courtesy of Mr. Clegg I obtained the floor and spoke against 
the majority platform. 

The silver plank was defeated by a large majority and the gold 
Democrats were so delighted with their victory that Messrs. Euclid 
Martin, W. D. McHugh and three others joined in a telegram to Sec- 
retary Morton notifying him of the resolutions passed and sending 
greeting to the President. Mr. Cleveland has since appointed Mr. 
Martin postmaster at Omaha and Mr. McHugh United States Judge 
for the District of Nebraska. 

Since the gold standard Democrats have referred to my convention 

speech as an abandonment of the Democratic party, I reproduce the 

criticised portion of it from the columns of the Lincoln Weekly Herald 

of that date: 



Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: We are confronted to- 
night by as important a question as ever came before the Democracy of the 
State of Nebraska. It is not a personal question, it is a question which rises 
above individuals. So far as I am personally concerned, it matters nothing 
whether you vote this amendment up or down; it matters not to me whether you 
pass resolutions censuring my course or endorsing it. If I am wrong in the 
position I have taken on this great financial question, I shall fall, though you 
heap your praises upon me; if I am right, and in my heart, so help me God, 
I believe I am, I shall triumph yet, although you condemn me in your conven- 
tion a hundred times. Gentlemen, you are playing in the basement of politics 
— there is a higher plane. You cannot settle the great political questions in this 
way. You think you can pass resolutions censuring a man and that you can 
humiliate him. I want to tell you that I shall still "more true joy in exile feel" 
than those delegates who are afraid to vote their own sentiments or represent 
the wishes of the people, lest they may not get a federal office. Gentlemen, I 
know not what others may do, but duty to country is above duty to party, and 
if you represent your constituents in what you have done and will do — for 
I do not entertain the fond hope that you who have voted as you have today 
will change upon this vote — if ;kou as delegates properly reflect the sentiment 
of the Democratic party which sent you here; if the resolutions which have 
been proposed and which you will adopt, express the sentiments of the party 
in this State; if the party declares in favor of a gold standard, as you will if 
you pass this resolution; if you declare in favor of the impoverishment of the 
people of Nebraska; if you intend to make more galling than the slavery 
of the blacks, the slavery of the debtors of this country; if the Democratic 
party, after you go home, endorses your action and makes your position its 
permanent policy, I promise you that I will go out and serve my country 
and my God under some other name, even if I must go alone. 

But, gentlemen, I desire to express it as my humble opinion that the 
Democratic party of Nebraska will never ratify what you have done here in this 
convention. In this city, when we had our primaries, there were bankers 
who called sons of their debtors in and told them how they must vote, but 
there are too many men in Nebraska who cannot be driven or compelled to 
vote as somebody else dictates. 

The Democratic party was founded by Thomas JefTerson, and Thomas 
Jefferson dared to defy the wealth and power of his day and plead the cause 
of the common people, and if the Democratic party is to live it must still 
plead the cause of the man who wears a colored shirt as well as the man who 
wears a linen collar. You must choose today what kind of democracy you 
want. For twenty years the party has denounced the demonetization of silver; 
for twenty years it has proclaimed it the "crime of the age;" it has heaped upon 
the RepubHcan party all the opprobrium that language could express because 
of its connection with demonetization; if you are ready to go down on your 
knees and apologize for what you have said, you will go without me. On the 
14th day of July, 1892, Senator Sherman, of Ohio, introduced in the Senate 
of the United States a bill substantially like the Wilson bill as it passed the 
House. Mr. Sherman is the premier of the Republican party, their leader upon 
financial questions, and you come into this convention and attempt to thrust hit 


bill down the throats of Democrats as a Democratic measure. There sits in 
Columbus, in the State of Ohio, one long known as "the noblest Roman of 
them all." He has won and held the affection of the American people as few 
citizens have done; in the evening of life, crowned with a nation's grati- 
tude, he awaits the summons that will call him home — where I know there is 
a reward for men who sacrifice for their country's good — and from the solitude 
of his retreat Allen G. Thurman says that he is opposed to unconditional re- 
peal, and when I must choose between Senator Sherman, of Ohio, and Allen 
G. Thurman, of Ohio, I shall take my democracy from the latter. 

Do you say that this is Democracy? Was it in the national platform? 
Read the platform. Can you find authority for unconditional repeal there? 
You find a demand for a repeal, but you find a matter far more important than 
a "cowardly make-shift," you find a demand that we shall coin both "gold 
and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage." 
Are you going to snatch away a fragment of the platform and call that Demo- 
cratic, while you turn your backs upon the declarations which have been in 
our platforms for the last twenty years? The Democratic party in Congress has 
on many occasions expressed itself and until this year there was never a time 
but that a majority of the Democrats in both House and Senate voted for the 
free coinage of silver at i6 to i by this country alone, and in this Congress, when 
the question came up in the House, a majority of the Democrats voted to sub- 
stitute the Bland law for the Sherman law, showing that they were not in favor 
of unconditional repeal. If they had favored unconditional repeal, would they 
have voted to continue the purchase of silver, as provided by the Bland act? 

In that speech I took the position which I have announced since on 
several occasions, namely, that I would not support for the Presidency 
an advocate of the gold standard. On the 26th of February, 1896, the 
Omaha World-Herald published an editorial written by me which 
covers this subject and I reproduce it for the purpose of setting forth 
my V16WS, and for the further purpose of pointing out that the subse- 
quent action of the gold standard Democrats was expected and 
counted upon. I have omitted the name of the paper referred to in the 
editorial because its side of the controversy is not given. 

The Philosophy of Bolting. 

The is very much agitated at the thought that some Democrats 

may refuse to vote for the Chicago nominee, and it alternately castigates 
Secretary Carlisle for refusing to aid Senator Blackburn and silver Demo- 
crats, whom it accuses of an unwillingness to support a goldbug for 
President. It gives more space to criticisms and warnings than it does 
to an intelligent effort to remove the cause of danger. We have reached 
a time when calm discussion will avail more than crimination and recrim- 
ination, and the World- Herald invites its esteemed contemporary to dis- 
cuss this question: "Is bolting ever justifiable, and if so, when?" The 
World-Herald holds that the individual member of a party at all times reserves 
the right to vote against a nominee of a party and to abandon his party entirely, 


whenever, in his judgment, his duty to his country requires it. He may 
abandon the party temporarily, as for instance, when an unfit candidate is nomi- 
nated — this is recognized by the fact that newspapers and speakers discuss the 
character of candidates and point out their fitness or unfitness. 

The voter may abandon his party permanently either when he himself 
changes his opinion upon a paramount public question or when his party 
changes its position. The strength of party organization is found in the fact 
that men do not like to repudiate a nominee or leave their party for light and 
trivial causes; in fact, the tendency to vote a straight ticket is so great that 
men require the strongest of reasons to justify desertions, and yet the right to 
bolt or abandon is essential unless man is to become a mere machine and unless 
the party machine is to become omnipotent. The desire to draw voters to the 
party makes the party careful to indorse the wisest policies, and the fear that 
men may bolt is the most eflfective protection against bad nominations. Web- 
ster defines a party as: "A number of persons united in opinion, as opposed to 
the rest of the community or association, and aiming to influence or control the 
general action." Agreement in opinion is the essential thing; who would define 
a party as **a number of persons differing in opinion, but united in an effort 
to secure the offices?" The reason why abandonment of party is not frequent 
is found in the fact that party principles are generally permanent in character, 
and therefore the members of the party, agreeing in opinion, work together har- 
moniously to carry out those opinions in legislation. The fact that a new 
national platform is adopted every four years is evidence that the right of the 
party to change its position on public questions is universally recognized, and the 
fact that a campaign is carried on through the press and upon the stump is 
proof that the right of the voter to change his party affiliations is also recog- 
nized. The party is a means, not an end; it has no reason for existence except 
as it enables the citizens to secure good government. When is a man justified 
in abandoning his party? Obviously, when he satisfies himself that some other 
party is a better means through which to serve his country. 

If the members of a party agree upon the important issues, difference of 
opinion on minor matters is of little consequence, but difference of opinion 
upon the questions that are for the time being paramount, always have destroyed, 
always will destroy, and always ought to destroy party harmony. It 
may be sad to contemplate the disturbance of harmony or the disintegra- 
tion of a party, but until human nature is changed and our form of 
government abandoned such things must be contemplated. When the 
tariff reformer as John G. Carlisle refusing to aid a Democratic tariff 
gether, regardless of differences of opinion upon the money question; but 
now the money question is paramount, and we see such a Democratic 
tariff reformer as John G. Carlisle refusing to aid a Democratic tariff 
reformer like Senator Blackburn in his fight against a Republican protectionist, 
and we see a tariff reformer like Grover Cleveland carrying out the financial 
policy of a protectionist like John Sherman. Can a national convention har- 
monize the discordant elements of the Democratic party? Impossible. Sup- 
pose the advocates of bimetallism control the national convention and nominate 
a free silver Democrat upon a free coinage platform, will Cleveland, Carlisle, 
Olney, Morton, et al. support the ticket? Of course not. They say the free 


coinage of silver means individual dishonesty, commercial disaster and national 
dishonor, and if they believe what they say, they ought not to support the 
ticket, because their duty to their country is higher than their duty to their 
party organization. If, on the other hand, the convention nominates a gold 
standard Democrat on a platform indorsing the gold standard, gold bonds, and 
national bank currency, should the nominee be supported by those who believe 
the gold standard to be a conspiracy of the capitalistic classes against the pro- 
ducers of wealth — a crime against mankind? Who says that they should? 
If to continue Mr. Cleveland's financial policy is to declare war against the 
common people, what friend of the common people would be willing to enlist 
in such a warfare, even at the command of his party? 

There is no compromise between monometallism and bimetallism; there is 
no middle ground between the issue of all paper money by the government and 
the issue of all paper money by the banks. There may have been a time when 
compromise was possible, but the question is now before the people and it must 
be settled one way or the other. If the question was an unimportant one it 
might be settled within the party and the decision acquiesced in; but it is a 
question that touches every man, woman and child in the nation, a question 
of right or wrong, a question of justice or injustice, a question of freedom 

or slavery. Will the advise its readers to silence their conscience, 

close their ears to cries of distress and their eyes to a misery greater than "war, 
pestilence, and famine" have wrought, and vote the ticket straight if the 
goldbugs control the convention? 

It does not dare to give that advice if it has any interest in the welfare 
of its readers. The Democratic party cannot serve God and Mammon; it can- 
not serve plutocracy and at the same time defend the rights of the masses. 
If it yields to the plutocracy it ought to lose, and it will lose the support of 
the masses; if it espouses the cause of the people it cannot expect either con- 
tributions or votes from the capitalistic classes and from the great corporations. 
If the gold standard Democrats control the national convention they will 
determine the policy of the Democratic party on all questions. Will they give 
the people relief from corporate aggression and from the oppression of trusts? 
Will they make this a government "of the people, by the people and for the 
people?" The knows that the gold standard Democrats, instead of afford- 
ing the people needed relief, would simply carry on the Government according 
to Republican ideas. When the Democratic party has gone down fighting for 
the right it has felt certain of resurrection, but what assurance has it of rising 
again if it goes down fighting against the interest of the masses? When the 
spirit of Jefferson leaves the Democratic party it will be a corpse. 

If abandonment of party is ever justifiable the voter must determine for 
himself when the time for abandonment arrives. When should he decide? The 
proper time, if not the only time, is after the party has adopted its platform and 
named its candidate. Until that time he does not know whether he can rely 
upon it to secure the government which he regards as good and the legislation 
which he considers necessary. Does participation in a primary or convention 
bind the voter to support a policy which he considers ruinous? If he tries, 
through his party organization to save his country and fails, must he then 
take a hand in its destruction? If a great question arises, must he assume that 


his party will go wrong, and therefore leave it before it acts, or should he try 
to hold his party to the right course? If a question of supreme importance 
arises which threatens to divide the party, have not the majority a right to 
retain the party name and organization? And how can the majority be 
detern>ined unless all members of the party have a right to take part in the 
decision? In some of the Western States the goldbugs have insisted that silver 
Democrats should pledge themselves to support the nominee before taking part 
in the selection of delegates. If a pledge is to be required, it should be required of 
those who select delegates as well as of those who act as delegates; but 
what organization has a right to require such a pledge? 

A county organization might require a pledge of those who are going to 
vote upon a county ticket, and a State organization might require a pledge of 
those who are going to vote upon a State ticket, but only a national organiza- 
tion can require a pledge of those who are going to vote upon national 
candidates and national questions. It would be manifestly unfair for Democrats 
of Missouri to be required to give a pledge to support the nominee of a national 
convention unless the same pledge is required of the Democrats of Massachu- 
setts. Why should the Democrats of the West and South agree to support the 
nominee of a national convention unless the Democrats of Aie northeastern 
States enter into the same agreement. Has any Eastern State pledged its 
Democrats to vote for a free silver candidate if nominated? Of course not; 
and yet if election returns are worth anything, they prove that Eastern Demo- 
crats are more apt to bolt than the Democrats of the South. The Eastern 
papers announce with great emphasis that a free silver Democrat cannot carry 
an Eastern State. Is that not a declaration that Eastern Democrats, after taking 
part in the selection of a candidate, will vote against him if they do not like 
him? The Democratic party has selected its candidate from New York for 
twenty years for the purpose of securing the electoral vote of New York, and 
yet some Western Democrats insist that the Democrats of the West and South 
are in duty bound to support the nominee, regardless of his position on the 
money question, even though the nominee may, if elected, destroy the value of 
their products, mortgage their homes to foreign capitalists and lower the 
standard of civilization. 

The World- Herald repudiates such a doctrine and demands the same liberty, 
the same independence, the same political rights, for the Democrats of the 
South and West that our Eastern brethren have at all times enjoyed. Will the 

enforce against its own readers a doctrine which it has no power to 

enforce against the goldbug Democrats of the East? Or will it recognize the 
right of all Democrats to a voice in the deliberations of the party, with the 
reserved right to abandon the party whenever the party abandons the cause 
of the people? 



SOME weeks elapsed after the repeal of the purchasing clause of the 
Sherman Act before there was any further discussion of financial 
legislation, but in February the seigniorage bill was brought be- 
fore the House and passed. I voted for the measure and made a speech 
in support of it. 

Notwithstanding the seigniorage bill had a considerable majority in 
both Houses, and a still larger majority among the Democratic Repre- 
sentatives in the House and Senate, the President vetoed the measure 
and thus thwarted the first effort put forth to relieve the people from 
the financial conditions which, already bad, were aggravated by the 
repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman law. Quite a number 
of the public men who supported unconditional repeal were anxious 
to secure the passage of the seigniorage bill in order to put themselves 
in better position before their constituents. 

The last session of the Fifty-third Congress witnessed a renewal of 
the discussion of monetary topics. President Cleveland presented to 
Congress a plan for reforming the currency and Mr. Springer of 
Illinois, chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, intro- 
duced the Administration measure. This bill had for its object the 
withdrawal of a portion of the greenbacks and Treasury notes and the 
extension of the national bank system. I opposed it in a speech of 
considerable length. 

The bill failed of passage and the President then recommended the 
retirement of the greenbacks and Treasury notes with an issue of gold 
bonds. Mr. Springer prepared and brought forward a measure carry- 
ing out the recommendation. Mr. Reed, on the part of the Republi- 
cans, proposed a substitute which authorized the issue of low rate bonds 
payable in coin. I offered the following amendment to Mr. Reed's 
substitute : 

Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed as surrendering the right 
of the Government of the United States to pay all coin bonds outstanding in 
gold or silver coin at the option of the Government, as declared by the fol- 
lowing joint resolution, adopted in 1878 by the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States of America, to wit: 



<a;^^^»g^ ^ — ■ - •'4^«i^-^-K-«-^p*-^^ 


"That all the bonds of the United States issued or authorized to be issued 
under the said act of Congress hereinbefore recited are payable, principal and 
interest, at the option of the Government of the United States, in silver dollars 
of the coinage of the United States, containing 412^ grains each of standard 
silver; and that to restore to its coinage such silver coins as a legal tender in 
payment of said bonds, principal and interest, is not in violation of the public 
faith nor in derogation of the rights of the public creditor." 

My amendment was voted down without discussion, then !Mr. 
Reed's substitute was rejected and Mr. Springer's bill defeated. Imme- 
diately after the defeat of the gold bond proposition the President 
entered into the Rothschild-Morgan contract and notified Congress in 
a special message that he had made the contract and at the same time 
called attention to the fact that he had reserved the right to substitute 
gold bonds at a lower rate of interest, and asked authority for the issue 
of such bonds. The Ways and Means Committee reported a bill grant- 
ing to the President the authority for which he asked. To me fell 
the honor of preparing a minority report against this bill. Hon. 
Justin R. Whiting joined in the report; the other members of the 
minority explaining their positions upon the floor in the course of the 
debate. I give below the minority report and also a copy of the con- 
tract which gave rise to the discussion: 

The Minority Report* 

Owing to the limited time allowed for preparing a report (it being neces- 
sary to file the report within a few hours after the bill was agreed upon) the 
undersigned dissenting members of the committee arc precluded from pre- 
senting their views with that elaboration which the importance of the subject 
would otherwise justify; but they beg to state briefly the most important reason 
which leads them to disapprove of the measure recommended by the majority 
of the committee. 

First. The issue of bonds of any kind is only needed to replenish the gold 
reserve; and the gold reserve only needs replenishing because the Secretary of 
the Treasury redeems United States notes and Treasury notes in the kind of 
coins selected by the note holder. The note holder has no legal right to choose 
the coin in which the obligation shall be redeemed, but has been permitted 
to exercise that right by a policy inaugurated by the Treasury Department at or 
soon after the date of the resumption of specie payment. The opinion of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Carlisle, recently given, is clear upon this 
point. On the 21st of January, 1895, a statement was made before the House 
Committee on Appropriations by Secretary Carlisle, in a printed report of 
which will be found the following question and answer: 

"Mr. Sibley. I would like to ask you (perhaps not entirely connected with 
the matter under discussion) what objection there could be to having the option 
of redeeming either in silver or gold lie with the Treasury instead of the note 


"Secretary Carlisle. If that policy had been adopted at the beginning of 
resumption — ^and I am not saying this for the purpose of criticising the action 
of any of my predecessors, or anybody else — but if the policy of reserving to 
the Government, at the beginning of resumption, the option of redeeming in 
gold or silver all its paper presented, I believe it would have worked beneficially, 
and there would have been no trouble growing out of it, but the Secretaries of 
the Treasury from the beginning of resumption have pursued a policy of 
redeeming in gold or silver at the option of the holder of the paper, and 
if any Secretary had afterwards attempted to change that policy and force 
silver upon a man who wanted gold, or gold upon a man who wanted silver, 
and especially if he had made that attempt at such a critical period as we 
have had in the last two years, my judgment is, it would have been very 
disastrous. There is a vast difference between establishing a policy at the 
beginning, and reversing a policy after it has been long established, and espe- 
cially after the situation has been changed." 

No one contends that the executive department of the Government can 
bind the Government or pledge its faith and credit by the adoption of such 
a policy. To so hold would be to assert that the Executive can make and re- 
peal laws without the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives. Believing that the Secretary of the Treasury has now by law the 
right to redeem legal tender notes by the payment of either gold or silver coin, 
whichever is most convenient" for the Government; and believing that the 
exercise of this discretion by the Secretary of the Treasury is absolutely neces- 
sary to protect the Government from organized and unorganized raids upon 
the coin reserve, we are not willing to indorse, directly or by implica- 
tion, the administrative policy which has precipitated the present financial 
conditions. Neither are we willing, by authorizing bonds for the purchase of 
gold, to pledge the Government to a policy which discriminates against 
silver as a standard money and recognizes gold as the only money of ulti- 
mate redemption. So long as the note holder is allowed to choose the coin 
in which he is to be paid, so long will it be futile to attempt to maintain a 
gold reserve. 

Recent experience shows that gold secured by the issue of bonds is at once 
drawn out by those who are interested in having more bonds issued, and thus 
the public debt is increased to the detriment of the taxpayer and for the 
benefit only of those who desire a safe investment for surplus funds. We do 
not believe that any real advantage will be gained by securing the gold 

It is urged that a change of policy at this time will cause embarrassment. 
If that be true the blame must be borne by those who first inaugurated the 
policy and by those who have adhered to it in spite of the clear intent and 
letter of the law. We have only to consider whether it is wiser to resume an 
exercise of rights preserved by existing laws or to aggravate our present 
difficulties by delaying relief and entering upon new experiments. We have 
no hesitation in declaring it as our conviction that there is no remedy, per- 
manent in character or promising in results, except an immediate exercise by 
the Secretary of the Treasury of the right to redeem United States notes and 
Treasury notes in standard silver coin whenever it is more convenient for the 


Government to do so, and we further believe that the greatest dangers which 
can possibly attend such a course are infinitely less than the evils which are 
certain to follow an adherence to the present policy. 

Second. If we were willing to authorize the issue of bonds at this time to 
purchase gold, we would still be opposed to bonds payable specifically in gold, 
because an issue of such bonds would either pledge the Government to the 
redemption of all obligations in gold or make a discrimination against coin 
obligations now outstanding. There is no question that the issue of gold 
bonds now would at once be followed by a demand for an act making existing 
bonds payable in gold, and it would be urged that it would be disastrous to 
depart from the policy of gold bonds when once inaugurated, just as it is now 
urged that it will be disastrous for the Government to resume a discretion 
which has been temporarily surrendered to the note holder. 

It is impossible to overestimate the evil influence which would be exerted 
by the issue of gold bonds by the Government, because such action would 
naturally and necessarily encourage if not actually compel the issue of gold 
bonds by all public and private corporations and the making of gold contracts 
by individuals generally. Such an increased strain upon gold would manifest 
itself in a further rise in the purchasing power of the dollar and in a further 
and distressing addition to the load of debt now borne by the people. 

Third. If we were in favor of an issue of gold bonds we would still be op- 
posed to the issue of bonds running for thirty years. According to the 
terms of the contract the bond purchasers agree to accept 3 per cent gold bonds 
without mentioning the date of payment, but it can not be doubted that the 
purchasers will insist upon a thirty-year bond if discretion is given to the 
Secretary of the Treasury to issue such a bond. 

Fourth. If we were willing to authorize the issue of thirty-year gold bonds 
we would still be opposed to recognizing or ratifying a contract as harsh in 
its terms and as imperious in its demands as the contract insisted upon by 
the bond purchasers. 

Fifth. If we were willing to approve of such a contract under ordinary 
circumstances we would still be opposed to approving it when made by a sov- 
ereign government with foreign financiers under circumstances which sug- 
gest a desire upon the part of the subjects of another country to purchase a 
change in the financial policy of this nation for a sum stated. 

These are some of the reasons which lead us to withhold our support from 
the measure recommended by a majority of the committee, and they are, in 
our judgment, sufficient to justify our dissent. If further reasons were 
necessary they might be found in the fact that the contract provides for the 
sale of coin bonds at about 104^, which would sell in the market at about 119; 
in the fact that the contract agrees to sell thirty-year gold bonds, drawing 3 per 
cent interest, for less than the Government three months ago sold twelve- 
year coin bonds, and in the additional fact that foreign investors are by the 
contract given a preference over American investors in the purchase of any 
bonds which may be issued before next October, and are also given a pref- 
erence now over the American investors who but a short time ago stood 
ready to purchase more bonds than were then offered. 



RotiiscbiId->Morgan Gmtract. 

This agreement entered into this 8th day of February, 1895, between the 
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, of the first part, and Messrs. 
August Belmont & Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. N. M. Rothschild 
& Sons, of London, England, and themselves, and Messrs. J. P. Morgan & 
Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co., of London, and 
themselves, parties of the second part. 

Witnesseth: Whereas it is provided by the Revised Statutes of the United 
States (section 3700) that the Secretary of the Treasury may purchase coin 
with any of the bonds or notes of the United States authorized by law, at 
such rates and upon such terms as he may deem most advantageous to the 
public interests; and the Secretary of the Treasury now deems that an emer- 
gency exists in which the public interests require that, as hereinafter pro- 
vided, coin shall be purchased with the bonds of the United States, of the de- 
scription hereinafter mentioned, authorized to be issued under the act enti- 
tled "An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments," approved 
January 14, 1875, being bonds of the United States described in act of Con- 
gress approved July 14, 1870, entitled "An act to authorize the refunding of 
the national debt." 

Now, therefore, the said parties of the second part hereby agree to sell and 
deliver to the United States 3,500,000 ounces of standard gold coin of the 
United States, at the rate of $17.80441 per ounce, payable in United States 4 
per cent, thirty-year coupon or registered bonds, said bonds to be dated Feb- 
ruary I, 1895, and payable at the pleasure of the United States after thirty 
years from date, issued under the acts of Congress of July 14, 1870, January 
20, 1871, and January 14, 1875, bearing interest at the rate of 4 per cent, per 
annum, payable quarterly. 

First. Such purchase and sale of gold coin being made on the following 

1. At least one-half of all coin deliverable hereinunder shall be obtained in 
and shipped from Europe, but the shipments shall not be required to exceed 
300,000 ounces per month, unless the parties of the second part shall consent 

2. All deliveries shall be made at any of the subtreasuries or at any other 
legal depository of the United States. 

3. All gold coins delivered shall be received on the basis of 25.8 grains of 
standard gold per dollar, if wit,hin limit of tolerance. 

4. Bonds delivered under this contract are to be delivered free of accrued 
interest, which is to be assumed and paid by the parties of the second part 
at the time of their delivery to them. 

Second. Should the Secretary of the Treasury desire to oflfer or sell any 
bonds of the United States on or before the ist day of October, 1895, he shall 
first oflfer the same to the parties of the second part; but thereafter he shall 
be free from every such obligation to the parties of the second part. 

Third. The Secretary of the Treasury hereby reserves the right, within ten 
days from the date hereof, in case he shall receive authority from Congress 
therefor, to substitute any bonds of the LTnited States, bearing 3 per cent, in- 
terest, of which the principal and interest shall be specifically payable in 


United States gold coin of the present weight and fineness for the bonds 
herein alluded to; such 3 per cent, bonds to be accepted by the parties of the 
second part at par, i. e., at $18.60465 per ounce of standard gold. 

Fourth. No bonds shall be delivered to the parties of the second part, or 
either of them, except in payment for coin from time to time received here- 
under; whereupon the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States shall 
and will deliver the bonds as herein provided, at such places as shall be desig- 
nated by the parties of the second part. Any expense of delivery out of the 
United States shall be assumed and paid by the parties of the second part. 

Fifth. In consideration of the purchase of such coin the parties of the 
second part, and their associates hereunder, assume and will bear all the ex- 
pense and inevitable loss of bringing gold from Europe hereunder; and, as far 
as lies in their power, will exert all financial influence and will make all legiti- 
mate eflforts to protect the Treasury of the United States against the with- 
drawals of gold pending the complete performance of this contract. 

In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands in five 
parts this 8th day of February, 1895. 


Secretary of the Treasury. 


On behalf of Messrs. N. M. Rothschild & Sons, London, and themselves. 

J. P. MORGAN & CO., 
On behalf of Messrs. J. S. Morgan & Co., London, and themselves. 

W. E. Curtis. 
Francis Lynde Stetson. 

I felt that the issue of bonds payable specifically in gold would 
establish a very dangerous precedent, and therefore took a deep interest 
in the defeat of the proposition. I believed that the issuance of gold 
bonds would be followed by a demand upon the part of the bond 
holding class for another credit strengthening act, like the one passed 
in 1869, except that this one would declare all bonds payable in gold. 
On February 14, 1895, I submitted the following argument in opposi- 
tion to the bill: 

Against Gold Bonds* 

The House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 276) author- 
Ixing the issue of |65,US,275 of gold 3 per cent, bonds. 

Mr. Speaker: This resolution embodies two purposes. It proposes to 
ratify the contract made by the Executive by authorizing the substitution 
of gold bonds to the amount of $65,116,275, bearing interest at a rate not 
exceeding 3 per cent, and payable not more than thirty years after date, 
in accordance with the request made in the President's message, and it 
also provides that greenbacks and Treasury notes redeemed with the gold pur- 
chased with these bonds shall not be re-issued. 

I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the latter pro- 
Tision is intended to lock up in the Treasury $65,000,000 of legal-tender paper 


without making any provision whatever to supply the place of that currency. 
If we vote for this proposition, we vote to retire that much money without 
filling the void. 

Mr. Warner. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. Bryan. I hope I shall not be interrupted. 

Mr. Warner. Does not the gold fill the void? 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Speaker, the House knows that when I have time I never 
object to questions, and it is only because of my limited time today that I ask 
gentlemen not to interrupt me. In answer to the question, however, I would 
say that unless the greenbacks and Treasury notes are reissued they will accu- 
mulate and a few more bond issues will retire all of them and deprive the coun- 
try of that much of its circulating medium. For all practical purposes it is 
equivalent to a cancellation of this money and will offer a constant temptation 
to those who oppose greenbacks to draw out the gold and force further issues 
of bonds for the purpose of getting this kind of money out of the way. 

But the main question presented by this resolution is whether we shall 
ratify the contract made by the Executive and issue gold bonds in order to 
save about a half million a year in interest. The supporters of this resolution 
urge us to consider it as a business proposition and I shall discuss it as a busi- 
ness proposition. One gentleman has suggested that Democrats ought not to 
criticise the Administration. I want it understood that, so far as I am con- 
cerned, when I took the oath of office as a member of Congress, there was 
no mental reservation that I would not speak out against an outrage com- 
mitted against my constituents, even when committed by the President of the 
United States. 

The President of the United States is only a man. We intrust the adminis- 
tration of government to men, and when we do so, we know that they arc 
liable to err. When men are in public office we expect them to make mis- 
takes—even so exalted an official as the President is liable to make mistakes. 
And if the President does make a mistake, what should Congress do? Ought 
it to blindly approve his mistake, or do we owe it to the people of the United 
States, and even to the President himself, to correct the mistake so that it will 
not be made again? But some gentlemen say that the Democratic party should 
stand by the President. What has he done for the party since the last election 
to earn its gratitude? I want to suggest to my Democratic friends that the 
party owes no great debt of gratitude to its President. What gratitude should 
we feel? The gratitude which a confiding ward feels toward his guardian 
without bond who has squandered a rich estate. What gratitude should we 
feel? The gratitude which a passenger feels toward the trainman who has 
opened a switch and precipitated a wreck. What has he done for the party? 
He has attempted to inoculate it with Republican virus, and blood poisoning 
has set in. 

What is the duty of the Democratic party? If it still loves its President, 
it is its duty, as I understand it, to prove that it has at least one attribute of 
divinity left by chastening him whom it loveth. 

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to question the motives of the officials who 
are responsible for this contract. We might criticise the conduct of the Presi- 
dent in excluding all other advisers and consulting only with the magnates of 


Wall street; and we might even suggest that he could no more expect to escape 
unharmed from such associations than one could expect to escape asphyxiation 
if he locked himself up in a room and turned on the gas — but without ques- 
tioning the motive of the President, I say, we have a right to express our judg- 
ment as to whether the discretion vested in the President has been wisely exer- 
cised. We are told that this is not only a business proposition but a very 
insignificant question — ^just a little matter of saving half a million a year, that 
is all. 

Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask these gentlemen who are always coming here 
with these "business propositions," why it is that no advocate of the gold 
standard dares to stand before the American people and unfold the full plan 
of the gold conspiracy. Why is it that our opponents keep bringing up one 
proposition at a time and saying, ''An emergency is upon us; let us adopt this 
proposition at once and leave the final settlement of the money question until 
some other time?" Why is it that we never reach a time when these gentlemen 
are willing to consider the greatest of all the questions which are demanding 
settlement at the hands of the American people? Save $16,000,000 in thirty 
years? Why, sirs, this is a bigger question than $16,000,000. 

Will you set a price upon human life? Will you weigh in the balance the 
misery of the people? What is the value of civilization to the human race — 
because the settlement of this "little question" may enormously affect the wel- 
fare of mankind. And yet, gentlemen talk about its being a matter of small 
consequence, a little question, the mere saving of half a million dollars a year. 
Save the people $16,000,000 in thirty years — twenty-five cents apiece — by this 
resolution and $16,000,000,000 will not measure the damage which may result 
to them in a third of that time. 

What is this contract? I am glad that it has been made public. It is a 
contract made by the Executive of a great nation with the representatives of 
foreign money loaners. It is a contract made with men who are desirous of 
changing the financial policy of this country. They recognize by their actions 
that the United States has the right to pay coin obligations in cither gold or 
silver and they come to us with the insolent proposition, "we will give you 
$16,000,000, paying a proportionate amount each year, if the United States will 
change its financial policy to suit us." Never before has such a bribe been 
offered to our people by a foreign syndicate, and we ought to so act that such a 
bribe will never be offered again. By this contract we not only negotiate with 
foreigners for a change in our financial policy but give them an option on 
future loans. Tliey arc to have the option on all bonds which may be issued 
before the first of next October. 

What would be the effect of such a condition? Do you suppose that any- 
body else will care to bid when it is known that these men have the refusal 
of all bonds at any price? It makes a popular loan impossible. If these men 
alone bid for the next issue they can insist upon a condition that they shall 
have an option on a still further issue of bonds. Shall we bind ourselves to 
these men perpetually? I shall not raise the question, because I am not pre- 
pared to discuss it from a legal standpoint, whether the President has a right 
to sell an option on bonds which may be hereafter issued, but, sirs, I will say 
that, if he has the right, I believe he has made an inexcusable use of the discre- 


tion vested in him. We cannot afford to put ourselves in the hands of the 
Rothschilds, who hold mortgages on most of the thrones of Europe. 

The press dispatches stated that the French steamer, La Gascognc. when 
she came into port a few daj's ago, had three red lanterns on her foremast, 
signifying: "Get out of the way, I cannot control my course." The President 
may be persuaded that this country hais reached a point where it cannot control 
its own course and must supplicate foreign financiers to protect our treasury, 
but he mistakes the sentiment of the American people if he thinks that they 
share with him in this alarm. The United States is able to take care of itself. 
It can preserve its credit and protect its people without purchasing at a high 
price the "financial influence" or the "legitimate cflForts" of banking corpora- 
tions, foreign or domestic. 

I call attention also to the fact that these bonds may be made payable in 
thirty years. The contract does not call for thirty-year bonds; it says that 
"any bonds of the United States," payable in gold, and drawing 3 per cent. 
interest, may be substituted in the place of the coin bonds. But there seems to 
be a fear that the bond buyers may insist that the spirit of the contract would 
compel the issue of thirty-year bonds. In describing this contract, Mr. 
Speaker, I find in "The Merchant of Venice" language more expressive than 
any I can command. That language fits the contract which we are asked to 
ratify, and is as follows: 

Shy lock. This kindness will I show: 

Oo with me to a notary, seal me there 
Tour single bond, and, in a merry sport, 

If you repay me not on such a day. 
In such a place, such sum or sums as are 

Express'd in the condition, let the forfeit 
Be nominated for an equal pound 

Of your fair flesh, to bo cut off and taken 
In what part of your body pleaseth me. 

Antonio. Yes, Shylock, I will seal unto this bond. 

Mr. Bowen. Who wrote that, Shakespeare or Bacon? 

Mr. Bryan. I shall leave Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Ingersoll to settle the 
question of authorship. But, Mr. Speaker, it was decided that Shylock's bond, 
while it called for a pound of flesh, did not include any blood. The difference 
between the construction placed upon that bond and the construction which this 
House is asked to place upon the contract before us is, that we are asked to 
make the construction so liberal as to include the blood with the flesh. We 
have a right, according to the terms of the contract, to substitute a short-time 
bond, and yet the resolution permits the Secretary to issue a thiity-year bond. 

This House is not prepared to give its sanction to a policy which con- 
templates a permanent public debt, but the rule adopted allows no opportunity 
for an amendment limiting the bonds to five or ten years. If we give the 
Secretary of the Treasury authority to issue a thirty-year bond, he is powerless 
to resist the demands of the bond purchasers, because the contract is made; 
ten days only arc given for the exercise of the option ; he can not negotiate with 
anybody else; he can not offer bonds to anybody else; he is in their hands; he 
must make a thirty-year bond if they ask it — and who doubts that they will 
ask it? 


There is another objection to this contract. It provides for the private sale 
of coin bonds, running thirty years, at $1.04^ which ought to be worth $1.19 in 
the open market, and which could have been sold at public auction for $1.15 
without the least effort. 

Why this sacrifice of the interest of the United States? The Government's 
credit was not in danger; the bonds of the United States were selling in the 
market every day at a regular premium. The same kind of bonds, having only 
twelve years to run, were selling at over $1.12. What excuse was there for 
selling a thirty-year bond for $1.04^? What defense can be made for this gift 
of something like seven millions and a half dollars to the bond syndicate? We 
are told that we can avoid the sale of coin bonds at $1,045^ by authorizing 3 per 
cent gold bonds. What a privilege! Why, it is less than three months since 
ten-year coin bonds were sold by the President at a premium which reduced 
the rate of interest to less than 3 per cent. 

Has the credit of the country fallen so much in three months that a 
thirty-year 3 per cent gold bond is worth less now than a ten-year 3 per cent 
coin bond was then? Nothing has occurred within three months, except the 
President's messages, to injure the credit of the country. If the President is 
correct in assuming that the financial world places a higher estimate upon gold 
bonds than upon coin bonds, why did he not secure a higher price for gold 
bonds? Did not purchasers know three months ago that coin bonds could be 
paid in silver? They certainly did, and yet they were willing to loan money on 
those bonds for a short time at a lower rate of interest than Messrs. Morgan 
and Rothschild now offer to loan on long-time gold bonds. 

But why are gold bonds demanded? Gentlemen say that all our bonds are 
in fact payable in gold now. They either are payable in gold or they are not. If 
they are, then this legislation is not needed; if they are not, then the proposed 
legislation is a radical and violent change of policy. We insist that outstanding 
bonds are payable in gold or silver and that the United States has the right to 
choose the coin. The men who contracted for coin bonds understood this, and 
insisted upon a higher rate of interest on the ground that they might be paid 
in silver. By what authority, then, does the President declare in his message: 
**Of course there should never be a doubt in any quarter as to the redemption 
in gold or the bonds of the Government which are made payable in coin." 
Is he not aware of the fact that the debtor always has the choice of the coin, 
where only coin is mentioned? Is he not aware of the adoption of the Matthews 
resolution in 1878? That resolution expressly declared the right of the Govern- 
ment to pay its bonds in either gold or silver. The resolution reads as follows: 

That all the bonds of the United States Issued or authorized to be issued under the 
said act of Congress hereinbefore recited are payable, principal and interest, at the option of 
the Goyemment of the United States, in silver dollars of the coinage of the United States, 
containing 412H grains each of standard silver; and that to restore to its coinage such 
silver coin as a legal tender in payment of said bonds, principal and interest, is 
not in violation of the public faith nor in derogation of the rights of the public 

That policy has never been changed by law, but the resolution before us 

makes a departure from the settled policy of the Government and provides for 

a bond payable specifically in gold. Do members realize the influence which 

would be exerted upon the public generally by the adoption of this resolution? 


The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Cooper) told us that his city recently issued 
gold bonds and we know that pressure is being brought to bear on other cities 
and on individuals to induce them to enter into gold contracts. If the Govern- 
ment discredits silver by making these bonds payable in gold only, it will set 
an example which will go far toward compelling all borrowers to promise pay- 
ment in gold. As gold contracts increase in number the demand for gold will 

What a farce for men to talk about maintaining the parity between the 
metals by means of legislation which directly tends to destroy the parity and 
drive gold to a premium! The legislation proposed will either pledge the 
Government to redeem all bonds in gold or it will discredit bonds already in 
existence. The probability is that the adoption of this resolution would be 
followed immediately by a demand from the holders of other bonds that they 
be put upon the same gold footing. I say probably; I may say that such a 
course is certain. No sooner had the President asked for authority to issue 
gold bonds than his faithful lieutenant in the Senate, Mr. Hill, offered a reso- 
lution pledging the Government to redeem all bonds in gold if gold goes to 
a premium. This remarkable resolution reads as follows: 

Resolved (if the House of Representatives concurs), That it is the sense of Con- 
gress that the true policy of the Oovemment requires that its efforts should be steadily 
directed to the establishment of a safe system of bimetallism, wherein gold and sliver 
may be maintained at a parity, and every dollar coined may be the equal in value 
and power of every other dollar coined or issued by the United States; but if our 
efforts to establish or maintain such bimetallism shall not be wholly successful, and if 
for any reason our silver coin shall not hereafter be at parity with gold coin and 
the equal thereof in value and power in the market and in the payment of debts, then 
it is hereby declared that the bonds of the United States now or hereafter issued 
which by their terms are payable in coin, shall nevertheless, be paid in standard gold 
dollars. It being the policy of the United States that its creditors shall at all times be 
paid in the best money in use. 

This would not only pledge the Government to the payment of previous 
issues in gold but would relieve the recent purchasers from the loss which they 
guarded against by an extortionate interest and yet leave them to enjoy the 
fruits of their extortion. Thus does one vicious proposition tread upon the 
heels of another. Mr. Hill's plan is even worse than the President's, for under 
the plan of the latter, the bondhcHder would bear whatever loss might arise if 
gold should happen to fall below silver, but Mr. Hill's plan burdens the Gov- 
ernment with all the risk and guarantees to the bondholder all the chance of 
gain. Not only is Mr. Hill's plan directly antagonistic to the principle of bi- 
metallism, but it oflFers a reward to the creditor if he can destroy the parity 
between the metals, whereas the creditor is interested in maintaining the parity 
when the option lies with the Government. 

It is alarming to note the aggressiveness of the creditor classes, and 
humiliating to think that Congress should be asked to comply with their 
wishes regardless of consequences. The first eflfect of this movement in the 
direction of gold contracts would be to reduce the amount of our primary money 
and to build our entire credit system upon a narrow base of gold. Think of 
making an indebtedness, public and private, of $13,000,000,000,, payable in gold, 
with only $600,000,000 of gold in the country, and that an estimate! 

The Government estimate of gold coin in the United States on the ist of 


January, 1895, was about $600,000,000, and of that sum only about $214,000,000 
was visible. About $100,000,000 was in the Treasury of the United States, and 
$114,000,000 was held by national banks. Beyond that, no one knows the 
whereabouts of any large amount of this gold. We know that no large amount 
of gold is in circulation among the people, or in hiding, and yet, with only 
$1214,000,000 of visible gold, the United States is expected to conduct a safe busi- 
ness on a gold basis. To make the attempt is to invite a panic — nay, more, 
it is to guarantee disaster. 

And yet, Mr. Speaker, if the immediate effect is bad, the ultimate effect 
of the proposed policy is infinitely worse. Every act of legislation dis- 
criminating against silver gives an impetus to the movement in favor of a gold 
standard and makes the restoration of bimetallism more difficult. No one act 
could, in my judgment, do more to obstruct the re-establishment of free 
bimetallic coinage as it existed prior to 1873 than the act which the President 
is attempting to force upon Congress. Are the gentlemen who are urging 
it deceived as to its purpose and necessary effect when they speak of it as an 
insignificant matter, or do they presume upon the credulity of their hearers? 
Believing that it is a long step in the direction of universal gold monometallism, 
and believing that universal gold monometallism would bring to this country 
continuous and increasing financial distress beyond the power of language to 
exaggerate, we protest against the passage of this resolution. If we love our 
country and are interested in its welfare, no sacrifice on our part should be too 
great, if necessary to prevent the adoption of such a policy by this, the foremost 
nation upon the earth. 

While the question immediately before us is whether we shall authorize 
the issue of gold bonds, I ask you to consider for a moment whether we need 
to issue bonds of any kind. Bonds have been issued to replenish the gold 
reserve, and the gold reserve has been drawn out because the holders of green- 
backs and Treasury notes have been allowed to designate the coin of redemption. 
In other words, the option which belongs to the Government has been sur- 
rendered to the holders of the notes, and this has been done, not by legislative 
enactment, but by an administrative policy. If the withdrawal of gold could 
be stopped no bonds would be necessary. It becomes important, therefore, to 
know whether the Government has a legal right to protect itself from gold 
grabbing by redeeming greenbacks and Treasury notes in silver when silver is 
more convenient. On the 21st of January, 1895, Secretary Carlisle made a state- 
ment before the House Committee on Appropriations, and I quote the following 
question and answer from a printed report of his testimony: 

Mr. Sibley. I would like to aak you (perhaps not entirely connected with the 
matter under discussion) what objection there could be to having the option of re- 
deeming either in silver or gold lie with the Treasury instead of the note holder? 

Secretary Carlisle. If that policy had been adopted at the beginning of resump- 
tion—and I am not saying this for the purpose of criticising the action of any of my 
predecessors, or anybody else— but if the policy of reserving to the Government, at the 
beginning of resumption, the option of redeeming in gold or silver all its paper pre- 
sented, I believe it would have worked beneficially, and there would have been no 
trouble growing out of it, but the Secretaries of the Treasury from the beginning of 
resumption have pursued a policy of redeeming in gold or silver, at the option of the 
bolder of the paper, and if any Secretary had afterwards attempted to change that 
policy and force silver upon a man who wanted gold, or gold upon a man who wanted 


silver, and especially if he had made that attempt at such a critical period as we 
have had in the last two years, my Judgment is, it would have been very disastrous. 
There is a vast difference between establishing a policy at the beginning, and revers- 
ing a policy after it has been long established, and, especially, after the situation has 
been changed. 

This is sufficient proof that the Secretary of the Treasury has the legal 
right to redeem greenbacks and Treasury notes in silver, but is restrained by the 
fear that, a different precedent having been established, an exercise of the legal 
right at this time would be "very disastrous." 

Senator Sherman in March, 1878, in testimony given before a Senate com- 
mittee, also recognized the right of the Government to redeem greenbacks with 
silver. I quote from his testimony: 

Senator Bayard. You speak of resumption upon a bimetallic basis being easier. 
Do you make that proposition irrespective of the readjustment of the relative values 
of the two metals as we have declared them? 

Secretary Sherman. I think so. Our mere right to pay in silver would deter a 
great many people from presenting notes for redemption who would readily do so if 
they could get the lighter and more portable coin in exchange. Besides gold coin can 
be exported, while silver coin could not be exported, because its market value is less 
than its coin value. • • • 

Senator Bayard. By the 1st of July next or the 1st of January next you have 
eighteen or twenty millions of silver dollars which are in circulation and payable! for 
duties, and how long do you suppose this short supply of silver and your control of it 
by your coinage will keep it equivalent to gold— when one is worth 10 cents less than 
the other. 

Secretary Sherman. Just so long as it can be used for anything that gold is used 
for. It will be worth in this country the par of gold until it becomes so abundant and 
bulky that people will become tired of carrying it about; but in our country that 
can be avoided by depositing it for coin certificates. 

No law has ever been passed surrendering the Government's right to redeem 
in silver; and it is as valuable now as it was just after the passage of the Bland 
law of 1878, which restored silver as a part of our standard money. The 
testimony above quoted was given by Senator Sherman, then Secretary of the 
Treasury, soon after the passage of the Bland act and before the resumption of 
specie payment. 

Now, notwithstanding the fact that the Government has a legal right to 
redeem in silver and thus protect the people from the gold hoarders and gold 
exporters, the President continues to pay in gold even when gold must be 
purchased by an issue of bonds, and we can not authorize the issue of any 
bonds for the purpose of buying gold, without indorsing the policy which 
permits the drain of gold and thus gives an excuse for a bond issue. So far, 
the surrender to the note holder of the right to designate the coin of payment 
is purely an act of the Executive and has never received legislative approval. 

If it is said that the President will issue bonds anyhow and that we ought 
therefore, to authorize a bond drawing a lower rate of interest, I reply that until 
we can restrain the President from further increasing our bonded indebtedness 
and compel him to protect the Government by* redeeming in silver when that 
is more convenient, we can better aflford to allow him to bear the respon- 
sibility alone than, by approving his course, pledge the Government to a con- 
tinuation of his policy. If the Secretary thinks that it would now be disastrous 
to depart from a precedent established by a former Secretary of the Treasury, 
how much more difficult it would be to change the policy after once indorsing 
it by an act of Congress. 


So long as the note holder has the option, bonds may be issued over and 
over ae^ain without avail. Gold will be withdrawn either directly or indirectly 
for the purpose of buying bonds, and an issue of bonds compelled again, when- 
ever bond buyers have a surplus of money awaiting investment. This experi- 
ment has been tried, but, instead of convincing the President of the futility 
of bond issues, it has simply led him to try a new experiment. By purchasing 
gold in Europe he may enlarge the circle around which the gold must pass, but 
he will not change the operation or protect the Government. The only remedy 
is the restoration of the bimetallic principle and the exercise of the option to 
redeem greenbacks and Treasury notes in silver whenever silver is more con- 
venient, or whenever such a course is necessary to prevent a run upon the 
Treasury. To delay the remedy is to prolong our embarrassment; to authorize 
bonds of any kind is to rivet upon the country the policy which has brought 
our present troubles upon us; to authorize bonds payable specifically in gold is 
to invite new difficulties and to establish a still more dangerous precedent. 

I am glad to hear some of our Republican friends denounce this gold-bond 
proposition, but are they not in effect condemning a Republican policy? The 
gold bond is the legitimate result of the policy inaugurated and continued by 
Republican administrations. It was a Republican administration which first 
surrendered to the note holder the option to demand gold in redemption of 
greenbacks and Treasury notes, and it was rumored that President Harrison 
was preparing to issue bonds to buy gold just before his term expired. The 
substitute for the Springer bill, that is, the substitute offered by the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Reed), authorized the issue of coin bonds to buy gold, and 
yet the Republicans, almost without exception, voted for that substitute. 

I offered an amendment to the Reed substitute, an amendment which re- 
affirmed the Matthews resolution declaring all coin bonds payable in gold or 
sihrer, and yet less than twenty (I think only thirteen) Republicans voted for my 
amendment. The great majority of the Republicans thus declared that coin 
bonds are gold bonds in fact. If coin bonds are really gold bonds, there is 
less reason for agitation about the use of the word gold in the bond. We, who 
believe that greenbacks and Treasury notes are redeemable in either gold or 
silver at the option of the Government — we. who believe in the right of the 
Government to redeem its coin bonds in either gold or silver — we, I say, can 
object to gold bonds as a violent change in our monetary policy, but those 
who insist that greenbacks, Treasury notes, and coin bonds are all payable in 
gold on demand have far less reason to criticise the President. 

I repeat, the President is simply carrying a Republican policy to its logical 
conclusion. If the Republicans arc in earnest in their opposition to gold bonds 
let them come with us and help to make all bonds unnecessary by restoring 
the bimetallic principle and exercising the option vested in the Government 
to redeem coin obligations in either gold or silver. The Government is helpless 
so long as it refuses to exercise this option. 

Mr. Dunn. Don't you want to make it more helpless? 

Mr. Bryan. No, sir; I do not propose to make it more helpless. I pro- 
pose the only policy which will help the Government. I propose the only 
policy which will stop the leak in the Treasury. I only ask that the Treasury 
Department shall be administered in behalf of the American people, and not 
in behalf of the Rothschilds and other foreign bankers. 


But, Mr. Speaker, I desire, in conclusion, to call the attention of our East- 
ern brethren to the fact that this controversy can be no longer delayed. The 
issue has come and it must be met. On these financial questions we find that 
the Democrats of the East and the Republicsins of the East lock arms and pro- 
ceed to carry out their policies, regardless of the interests and the wishes of the 
rest of the country. If they form this union, offensive and defensive, they 
must expect that the rest of the people of the country will drop party lines, if 
necessary, and unite to preserve their homes and their welfare. 

If this is sectionalism, the East has set the example. The demand of our 
Eastern brethren, both Republicans and Democrats, is for a steadily appreci- 
ating monetary standard. They are creditors; they hold our bonds and our 
mortgages, and, as the dollars increase in purchasing power, our debts increase 
and the holders of our bonds and mortgages gather in an unearned increment 
They are seeking to reap where they did not sow; they are seeking to collect 
that to which they are not entitled; they favor spoliation under the forms of 
law. The necessary result of their policy is the building up of a plutocracy 
which will make servants of the rest of the people. 

This effort has gone on steadily, and, for the most part, stealthily, during 
the past twenty years, and this gold bond proposition is but another step in 
the direction of financial bondage. But I warn them that no slavery was ever 
perpetual. It has often been attempted, it has even been successfully attempted 
for a time, but the shackles are always broken at last. Bondage is ephemeral, 
freedom is eternal. "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the 

The time will come when the unjust demands and the oppressive exactions 
of our Eastern brethren will compel the South and West to unite in the restora- 
tion of an honest dollar — a dollar which will defraud neither debtor nor cred- 
itor, a dollar based upon two metals, "the gold and silver coinage of the Con- 
stitution." "Thomas Jefferson still survives" and his principles will yet tri- 
umph. He taught equality before the law; he taught that all citizens are 
equally entitled to the consideration of government; he taught that it is the 
highest duty of government to protect each citizen from injury at the hands 
of any other citizen. We seek to apply his principles today to this great ques- 
tion; we seek to protect the debtor from the greed of the creditor; we seek 
to protect society from the avarice of the capitalist. We believe that in the 
restoration of bimetallism we shall secure the re-establishment of equity and 
restore prosperity to our country. 

There was great rejoicing among the opponents of the measure 
when the vote disclosed its defeat. 

Just before the cfose of the session the Speaker appointed Hon. 
David Culberson, of Texas, and Hon. Robert E. Hitt, of Illinois, as the 
House members of a commission to attend an international monetary 
conference which then seemed about to be called. The House by 
unanimous vote made Speaker Crisp a member of the commission. 
The appointment of this commission aroused some discussion in regard 
to international bimetallism and on the last day of the session, a little 


before adjournment, I made my last speech in the House of Representa- 
tives. I said: 

International Bimetaflisnu 

While we are in favor of sending delegates to this conference, we have no 
great hope that such a conference will accomplish anything, nor do we believe 
that an international agreement is necessary; but at this time the United States 
is not coining silver, and it is obviously impossible to secure any aolioii 
favorable to silver before March 4, 1897. If, while the United States refuses to 
coin silver, we refuse to send representatives to an international confcreurc 
our refusal will be taken as a declaration against silver rather than in its 

My reason for believing that an international monetary conference is not 
likely to accomplish anything is that other nations do not stand in the 
same attitude that we do. It has been said by the gold advocates in England, 
and well said, that England is a creditor nation, and that, as she draws 
her income from all other nations, she profits by the appreciation of the 
dollan Those who are in authority there realize that and openly admit 
it, and I do not believe that we can expect those who are profiting by 
the appreciation of the dollar to join heartily in the restoration of bimetallism. 

Mr. Harcourt said in the English Parliament the other day, that, while the 
Government would not object to the proposition then made, he had no 
hope of the conference resulting in any good. He denounced to the advocates 
of bimetallism that England is opposed to any change in her financial 
system. I do not believe that this monetary conference is even likely to be 
convened at the instance of a foreign nation; and, if it is convened, I do 
not believe that it will result in any agreement. And yet, sir, we who believe in 
free coinage, we who think that this nation can and should undertake free 
coinage alone — we, I say, are not willing to place ourselves in the attitude of 
refusing to lend a helping hand if any other nation desires a conference. 

The Reichstag of Germany has, it is true, declared in favor of reconvening 
the monetary conference. But, as I understand it, that is the popular branch 
of the legislature and may not result in any action on the part of the Govern- 
ment. In the action taken by the Reichstag, however, we find strong proof 
that in Germany, which more than twenty years ago adopted the gold standard, 
it has been demonstrated that the gold standard is a failure for the masses 
of the people and only beneficial to the capitalistic classes. And it is a 
significant fact that just after the Reichstag resolved in favor of international 
bimetallism the Chamber of Commerce of Berlin passed resolutions con- 
demning the action of the Reichstag and approving of the gold standard. 
They have the same contest over there that we have here. 

They have a contest between the money power and the common people, 
but the money power has a greater advantage there than here. If, in this 
country, where we have universal suffrage and a more equal distribution 
of wealth than is found in Germany, we have labored in vam for twenty 
years to restore bimetallism after it was stricken down in the dark and without 
public discussion, what hope is there in Germany or in England where great 
national debts held by the capitalistic classes make the Governments the 
slaves of the money lenders? 


Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of doing anything which looks toward the 
restoration of silver, but I want it understood that while we are willing to 
send delegates to an international conference and are anxious to send real 
advocates of silver who will vote and work for the restoration of bimetallism, 
yet we arc not in favor of waiting upon that conference for one day or one hour. 
Whether the conference is held or not we arc in favor of continuing the 
agitation, and shall endeavor at the very first moment to secure the passage 
of a bill providing for "the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited 
coinage of gold and silver at the present legal ratio of i6 to i, as such coinage 
existed prior to 1873, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other 
nation, such gold and silver coin to be a full legal tender for all debts, public 
and private." 

If this conference results in good, all right; we shall accept the good 
and be thankful. If it results in nothing, as the three previous conferences 
have, we need not feel disappointed nor cast down. I believe that inde- 
pendent action on our part at once would force other nations to restore 
bimetallism much sooner than such a result can be secured by words of 
persuasion. In other words, I believe that we shall wait for bimetallism 
by an international agreement; I believe that this nation alone is able to main- 
tain the parity between gold and silver at the ratio of 16 to i, and I further 
believe that the worst results which can possibly follow from independent 
action on the part of the United States will be better for our people than the 
best results which can follow from our present financial policy. 

Mr. Dinglcy. I understand the gentleman to say that he is in favor of 
the free coinage of silver by this country at a ratio of 16 to i? 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dinglcy. Does the gentleman believe that it will result in bimetallism? 

Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir; I do. 

Mr. Dinglcy. How? 

Mr. Bryan. Because I believe that this country is great enough to main- 
tain the parity between the two metals at the ratio of 16 to i. 

Mr. Dinglcy. By buying silver at $1.29 an ounce, when it is only worth 63 
cents in the market? 

Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman understands the meaning of free coinage, 
he understands that it does not mean the bu/ing of an ounce of silver. We do 
not want to buy silver. Wc want to open the mints to silver as the mints 
are now open to gold. 



ONE evening in May, 1894, a few Nebraska Democrats assembled 
at the Paxton Hotel in Omaha, the following persons being 
present: Judge Joseph E. Ong of Geneva, Hon. J. B. Kitchen 
of Omaha, Hon. C.J. Smyth of Omaha, Judge J. H. Broady of Lincoln, 
Hon. William H. Thompson of Grand Island, Hon. James C. Dahlman 
of Chadron, Hon. John Thomsen of Fremont, Hon. G. A. Luikart of 
Norfolk, Hon. John C. Van Houscn of Schuyler, Hon. C. V. Casper of 
David City, Hon. Edward Falloon of Falls City, Hon. W. H. Kelligar 
of Auburn, Frank J. Morgan, Esq., of Plattsmouth, and Richard L. 
Metcalfe of the editorial staff of the Omaha World-Herald. 

I have given the names of these gentlemen because they were pio- 
neers in a great movement and originated a plan which was afterward 
successfully applied to national politics. They were all men of stand- 
ing in the State and most of them men of considerable property. 
Messrs, Thomsen, Luikart, Van Housen and Casper were members 
of the State Legislature; Judge Broady had been upon the district 
bench. (He was a candidate for Congress in 1896 and came within 
three hundred votes of election.) Mr. Smyth had been a member of 
the Legislature and has since been elected attorney general of the 
State. Mr. Thompson (of Grand Island) is the present Democratic 
national committeeman for the State of Nebraska and Mr. Dahlman 
is the present chairman of the Democratic State Committee. Mr. 
Metcalfe is now editor-in-chief of the World-Herald. I cannot say 
with whom the idea first originated, but these congenial spirits, on the 
evening mentioned, decided to call a conference of silver Democrats 
to be held at Omaha on the 21st of June, 1894. While I had dis- 
cussed with some of the gentlemen the necessity of making a fight for 
the control of the party organization in the State, I knew nothing of 
this plan until the conference had been called. Upon invitation, I 
visited Nebraska and addressed this conference. A few days before 
leaving Washington, I received a letter from a Nebraska friend who 
suggested that a few silver Democrats had expressed themselves in 
favor of a demand for bimetallism without naming any ratio. Believ- 

o 149 


ing it necessary to make a bold and emphatic declaration, I at once 
telegraphed that the subject of my address would be: 

We favor the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of 
gold and silver at the present ratio, without waiting for the aid or consent 
of any other nation on earth. 

I found upon my arrival that the Committee on Resolutions had 

decided to embody my subject in the platform, but before the platform 

was ready to report some one asked me whether the words "present 

ratio" meant the present legal ratio or the present bullion ratio, and, to 

avoid ambiguity, the declaration was so ^mended as to read: 

We favor the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of 
gold and silver at the present ratio of i6 to i, without waiting for the aid or 
consent of any other nation on earth. 

The platform also announced to the Democrats of the State 
that the silver question would be submitted to the primaries 
for the decision of the voters. The conference resulted in 
a complete organization among the silver Democrats, reaching 
from a State executive committee down to a committeeman 
in each County and, where possible, in each precinct. The 
Democratic State Committee was asked to set an early date for the 
convention, but, being controlled by the gold element, refused this 
request and delayed the State Convention until September. This 
delay, however, instead of injuring, really benefited the silver Demo- 
crats and enabled them to make a more complete canvass of the State. 
When the convention met, the silver Democrats were in control by a 
vote of nearly three to one. Mr. Euclid Martin, the chairman of the 
State committee, called the convention to order and, at the request 
of the committee, suggested a temporary chairman. The silver 
Democrats had asked for the selection of one of their number and when 
their request was refused moved to substitute the name of their candi- 
date, Hon. Ed. P. Smith, for the one suggested by the committee. 
After some debate, the candidate suggested by the committee withdrew 
his name and Mr. Smith was elected without further opposition. I 
wrote the money plank adopted by the convention; it reads as follows: 

We indorse the language used by Hon. John G. Carlisle in 1878, when he 
denounced the "conspiracy" to destroy silver money as "the most gigantic 
crime of this or any other age," and we agree with him that "the con- 
summation of such a scheme would ultimately entail more misery upon the 
human race than all the wars, pestilences and famines that ever occurred in 
the history of the world." We are not willing to be parties to such a crime, and 
in order to undo the wrong already done, and to prevent the further appreciation 
of money, we favor the immediate restoration of the free and unlhnited 


coinage of gold and silver at the present ratio of i6 to i, without waiting 
for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth. 

We regard the right to issue money as an attribute of sovereignty and 
believe that all money needed to supplement the gold and silver coinage of 
the Constitution, and to make the dollar so stable in its purchasing power 
that it will defraud neither debtor nor creditor, should be issued by the 
general Government, as the greenbacks were issued; that such money should 
be redeemable in coin, the Government to exercise the option by redeeming 
in gold or silver, whichever is most convenient for the Government. We 
believe that all money issued by the Government, whether gold, silver, or paper, 
should be made a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and that 
no citizen should be permitted to demonetize by contract that which the 
Government makes money by law. 

The platform also declared in favor of the income tax, arbitration 
and the foreclosure of the Pacific liens. In fact, in 1894 the Demo- 
crats of Nebraska contended for substantially the same policies which 
were embodied in the Democratic National Platform of i8g6. To carry 
the parallel a little further, it may be remarked that the Republicans 
won in Nebraska in 1894; in 1896, however, they lost. In 1894 they 
secured a two-thirds majority in the Legislature and elected all the 
State officers except governor; in 1896 the fusionists secured a two- 
thirds majority in the Legislature and elected every State official. 

But to return to the convention. After the adoption of the plat- 
form and the nomination of a candidate for the United States Senate, 
the convention proceeded to nominations for State officers. Hon. Silas 
A. Holcomb, who had been previously nominated by the Populists, 
was, by a large majority, made our nominee for Governor and several 
other PopuHst nominees were placed upon our ticket. A few of the 
gold Democrats, after taking part in the convention during its tempo- 
rary organization, during the adoption of the platform, during the 
nomination of a candidate for the United States Senate and during the 
selection of the State committee, left the hall as soon as Mr. Holcomb 
was nominated. These, together with a few who had, at the primaries, 
failed of election as delegates, assembled in a room of the Paxton Hotel 
and organized a new party. They called themselves "straight Demo- 
crats" and their candidates for State offices were placed upon the 
official ballot by petition. 

It is interesting to note that the course pursued by the gold Demo- 
crats of Nebraska was the same as that pursued two years later by the 
gold Democrats of the United States and, it may be added, that in 
Nebraska, as later in the United States, they sought to secure the elec- 
tion of the Republican candidates. The following year the Democrats 


met in convention, readopted the platform of 1894, and nominated 
candidates for supreme judge and regents of the university, these 
being the only officers voted for at that election. 

The bolting Democrats continued their organization and placed a 
ticket in the field. This year they dropped the word "straight" and, 
taking advantage of a court decision, placed their candidates on the 
official ballot as '^Democrats." According to our ballot law, the 
names of candidates are arranged in alphabetical order and it so hap- 
pened that their candidates came before ours on the ballot and since 
both their candidates and ours were marked "Democrat" with nothing 
further to distinguish between them, and as there was no State cam- 
paign to bring the matter before the voters, their candidates received 
more votes than ours. 

In the following spring, our State committee sent a letter to the 
State committee of the bolting Democrats, proposing to submit the 
silver question to the Democratic voters at a primary election with the 
agreement that the delegates to the National Convention should repre- 
sent the sentiment which prevailed at the primaries. This proposition 
was refused by the bolters and two delegations sought admission to the 
Chicago Convention. Our State convention, held in the spring of 
1896 to select delegates to the National Convention, adopted a plat- 
form substantially like the one in 1894. As will appear later, the bolters 
occupied seats in the National Convention during the temporary or- 
ganization, while the regular delegation (the one advocating free coin- 
age at 16 to i) was afterwards seated by the convention. 



IN NOVEMBER, 1889, a National Silver Conference was held at St. 
Louis, Missouri. Hon. A. J. Warner, of Ohio, was chosen perma- 
nent chairman, and addresses were delivered by Senator William 
M. Stewart, of Nevada, Hon. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, and 
others. This was virtually the beginning of the American Bimetallic 
League, although the organization was not actually perfected until 
May, 1892, when, at a second conference, the name was chosen, and 
an Executive Committee appointed, consisting of: 

Hon. A. J. Warner, President. 
Lee Crandall, Secretary. 
L. M. Rumsey, of Missouri. 
Richard Lacey, of New York. 
Senator A. H. Colquitt, of Georgia. 

W. J. Cheney, of Pennsylvania. 
Francis G. Ncwlands, of Nevada. 
Ex-Governor James II. (jranl, Colorado. 
Senator John W. Daniel, of Virginia. 
Congressman Willis Sweet, of Idaho. 

National conferences were held from time to time under the 
auspices of this league, the principal ones at Washington. l)cs Moines, 
Iowa, Chicago and St. Louis. The Chicago conference was held 
in August, 1893, just prior to the opening of the extraordinary 
session of Congress. I attended this conference, and served upon the 
Resolutions Committee with Hon. Ignatius Donnelly of Minnesota, 
whom I then met for the first time, and with whose great ability 
I was at once impressed. The platform adopted declared against 
unconditional repeal and, quoting the language of several prominent 
Democrats and Repubhcans, demanded the inmiediate opening of our 
mints to free and unlimited coinage. 

Among the educational influences at work in behalf of himetallisn? 
during this period the most potent was "Coin's Financial School." 
This little book was written by WilHam H. Harvey, of Chicago, and 
published in June, 1894. Mr. Harvey began, in 1893, the publication 
of an illustrated paper called "Coin," and soon afterward published 
*'Coin's Hand Book," but "Coin's Financial School" surpassed all of 
his other publications, and reached a wonderful sale. The argument 
was in dialogue form, and the book aptly illustrated. The discussion 
was so elementary' as to enable a beginner to master the principles in- 
volved. It is safe to say that no book in recent times has produced 



so great an effect in the treatment of an economic question. This 
work was followed by "A Tale of Two Nations," "Coin's Financial 
School Up to Date," "Number Seven Coin's Financial Series," "Num- 
ber Eight Coin's Financial Series," and the "Patriots of America," all 
by the same author; the last named being the manual of a national 
order of the same name established by Mr. Harvey for the study of 
political and economic questions. He also published and circulated 
in pamphlet form an argument of remarkable force and clearness 
in defense of bimetallism by Archbishop Walsh, of Ireland. 

Notwithstanding the number of publications issued by him, he 
found time to deliver many lectures and to take part in several de- 
bates, the most important ones being with Prof. J. Lawrence* Laughlin, 
of the Chicago University, and with the late Hon. Roswell P. Horr, 
of the New York Tribune. Mr. Harvey attended the convention of the 
National Silver party held at St. Louis, and took an active part in the 

On February 22, 1895, a conferefice was held in Washington D. 
C, attended by a number of the leading bimetallists, at which an 
address was issued declaring that action favorable to bimetallism was 
improbable in the Democratic and Republican parties and calling 
upon the friends of free silver to unite in the formation of a new 
party with the money question as the sole issue. The conference sug- 
gested the name of Hon. Joseph C. Sibley, of Pennsylvania, as the 
proper person to unite all the forces favorable to bimetallism, and in- 
vited expressions upon the subject from the people. Hon. A. J. 
Warner, of Ohio, Senator John P. Jones, of Nevada, and Senator 
William M. Stewart, of the same State, were the leading spirits in the 

Mr. Warner, who, as chairman of the American Bimetallic League, 
called this conference, deserves to be mentioned as one of the most able 
and earnest advocates of bimetallism to be found in the countrv. No 
one has surpassed him in unselfish devotion to the cause. 

Mr. Jones was a member of the silver commission appointed during 
the Forty-fourth Congress and was one of tlie delegates from the 
United States to the International Monetary Conference at Brussels, 
in 1892. It may be said without disparagement of the efforts of others, 
that his speech in opposition to the repeal of the Sherman law is prob- 
ably the most complete and comprehensive defense of bimetallism ever 
presented in any language. 

Mr. Stewart has for manv vears been identified with the silver 


cause. He has attended every National conference where the subject 
was under consideration, and has devoted all his energies to the restora- 
tion of the bimetallic standard. I had frequent occasion to visit the 
United States Senate during the prolonged struggle which ended in 
the imconditional repeal of the Sherman law, and I shall never forget 
the earnestness with which he pleaded against the passage of that act. 
Not only has he availed himself of every opportunity offered by his 
official position, but he has been constant in his work outside of ihe 
Senate, having for more than a year past been connected with t he- 
Silver Knight and National Watchman, a paper published at W'ashiiij;- 
ton and devoted to the restoration of the money of the Constitution. 

Mr. Sibley was elected to the Fifty-third Congress by the Demo- 
crats, Populists and Prohibitionists, and in a single speech took a fore- 
most place among the advocates of free silver. This speech was very 
widely circulated, both at the time and during the last campaign, lie 
is a man of deep convictions and a speaker of great f(jrce and elo- 

I mention this conference more at length than others bocause it 
marked the transition from educational work to political effort. 

Early in 1895 a conference was held at Salt Lake City, Utah, out of 
which grew the National Bimetallic Union, with headquarters at Chi- 
cago. This organization established a weekly paper called the 
"Bimetalhst," published at Chicago. Hon. H. F. Bartinc, for many 
years a member of Congress from Nevada, was installed as editor of 
this paper, and under his guidance it became a great educational 
power. Its editorials were widely quoted by the daily and weekly press. 

During the closing days of the Fifty-third Congress the writer 
assisted in the preparation of an address which was signed by Messrs. 
Bland of Missouri, Coffeen of Wyoming, Fithian of Illinois, Cockrell of 
Missouri, McLaurin of South Carolina, Maguire of California, Ikirt 
of Ohio, Whiting of Michigan, Richardson of Michigan, Snodgrass 
of Tennessee, Smith of Arizona, Ogden of Louisiana, Capehart of West 
Virginia, Moore of Kansas, Money of Mississippi, Fyan of Missouri, 
Morgan of Missouri, Grady of North Carolina, Shell of South Carolina, 
Lane of IIHnois, Donovan of Ohio, Latimer of South Carolina, Arnold 
of Missouri, Denson of Alabama, Talbert of South Carolina, \\'illiams 
of Mississippi, Strait of South Carolina, Joseph of New Mexico, Cam- 
inetti of California, Bower of North Carolina, and myself — all Demo- 
cratic members of Congress, and Col. Evan P. Howell, editor of the 
Atlanta Constitution, and Hon. J. Floyd King, of Louisiana. The two 


last named were strong advocates of free silver and happened to be 
in the city at the time the address was being prepared. This address 
is given in full, together with the autograph signatures, because it 
was the beginning of the successful effort upon the part of the silver 
Democrats of the nation to take control of the Democratic organiza- 
tion. Many of the silver papers placed the address at the head of their 
editorial columns and proceeded to advocate the policy therein out- 

An Important Document. 

To the Democrats of the United States : 

VV e, the undersigned Democrats, present for your consideration the 
following statement: 

We believe that the establishment of gold as the only monetary 
standard and the elimination of silver as a full legal tender money, will 
increase the purchasing power of each dollar, add to the burden of all 
debts, decrease the market value of all other forms of property, con- 
tinue and intensify business depression, and, finally, reduce the ma- 
jority of the people to financial bondage. 

We believe that no party can hope for enduring success in the 
United States so long as it advocates a single gold standard, and that 
the advocacy of such a financial policy would be especially fatal to a 
party which, like the Democratic party, derives its voting strength from 
those who may without reproach be called the common people ; and we 
point to the overwhelming defeat of the party in 1894, to the opposi- 
tion aroused by the veto of the seigniorage bill and to the still more 
unanimous protest against the issue of gold bonds, as proof that the 
Democratic party cannot be brought to the support of the gold stand- 
ard policy. 

We believe that the money question will be the paramount issue in 
1896, and will so remain until it is settled by the intelligence and 
patriotism of the American voters. 

We believe that a large majority of the Democrats of the United 
States favor bimetallism, and realize that it can only be secured by the 
restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the 
present ratio, and we assert that the majority have, and should exercise, 
the right to control the policy of the party and retain the party name. 

We believe that it is the duty of the majority, and within their 
power, to take charge of the party organization and make the Demo- 
cratic party an effective instrument in the accomplishment of needed 
reforms. It is not necessary that Democrats should surrender their 



convictions on other questions in order to take an active part in the 
settlement of the question which at this time surpasses all others in 

We believe that the rank and file of the Democratic party should 
at once assert themselves in the Democratic party and place the party 
on record in favor of the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited 
coinage of gold and silver at the present legal ratio of i6 to i, as such 
coinage existed prior to 1873, without waiting tor the aid or consent of 
any other nation, such gold and silver coin to be a full legal tender for 
all debts public and private. 

We urge all Democrats who fa^-or the financial policy above set 
forth to associate themselves togetlier and impress their views upon 
the party organization; we urge all newspapers in harmony with the 
above linancial policy to place it at the head of the editorial column and 
assist in the immediate restoration of bimetallism. 

6 '^A^- -^^ 



The main difficulty encountered by those who insisted upon the 
immediate organization of the silver forces within the Democratic party 
was the fear expressed by many Democrats that the effort might dis- 
turb the party harmony. We were unexpectedly aided by a letter 
written by President Cleveland to Hon. Henry S. Robbins of Chicago, 
declining an invitation to visit that city in the interest of "sound 
money/* as the gold standard was euphoniously called. This letter 
was a call to all the advocates of the gold standard, regardless of party, 
to unite for the defeat of free coinage, and it convinced many doubting 
ones that the President and his associates did not expect to support 
the Democratic ticket unless they controlled the convention. This 
letter is such an excellent illustration of the ambiguity and indirectness 
generally indulged in to a greater or less extent by the opponents 
of bimetallism, that it is reproduced in full : 

President Qevelaxid^s Letter on Sound Money* 

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C, April 13, 1895. 

Gentlemen: I am much gratified by the exceedingly kind and the com- 
plimentary invitation you have tendered me on behalf of many citizens of Chi- 
cago to be their guest at a gathering in the interest of sound money and whole- 
some financial doctrine. My attachment to this cause is great, and I know so 
well the hospitality and kindness of the people of Chicago, that my personal 
inclination is strongly in favor of accepting your flattering invitation; but my 
judgment and my estimate of the proprieties of my official place oblige me to 
forego the enjoyment of participating in the occasion you contemplate. I hope, 
however, that the event will mark the beginning of an earnest and aggressive 
effort to disseminate among the people safe and prudent financial ideas. Noth- 
ing more important can engage the attention of patriotic citizens, because noth- 
ing is so vital to the welfare of our countrymen and to the strength, prosperity 
and honor of our nation. 

The situation confronting us demands that those who appreciate the im- 
portance of this subject and those who ought to be the first to see impending 
danger should no longer remain indifferent or over-confident. If the sound 
money sentiment abroad in the land is to save us from mischief and disaster, 
it must be crystallized, combined and made immediately active. It is danger- 
ous to overlook the fact that a large number of our people with scanty oppor- 
tunity thus far to examine the question in all its aspects, have nevertheless been 
ingeniously pressed with specious suggestions, which in this time of misfortune 
and depression find willing listeners, prepared to give credence to any scheme 
which is plausibly presented as a remedy for their unfortunate condition. 

What is now needed more than anything else is a plain and simple presen- 
tation of the argument in favor of sound money. In other words, it is a time 
for the American people to reason together as members of a great nation 
which can promise them a continuance of protection and safety, only so long 
as its solvency is unsuspected, its honor unsullied and the soundness Qf its 
money unquestioned. 


These things are ill-exchanged for the illusions of a base currency and 
groundless hope of advantages to be gained by a disregard of our financial 
credit and commercial standing among the nations of the world. If our peo- 
ple were isolated from all others, and if the question of our currency could be 
treated without regard to our relations to other countries, its character would 
be a matter of comparatively little importance. If the American people were 
only concerned in the maintenance of their precious life among themselves they 
might return to the old days of barter and in this primitive manner acquire 
from each other the materials to supply the wants of their existence. But if 
American civilization was satisfied with this, it would abjectly fail in its high 
and noble mission. In these restless days the farmer is tempted by the assur- 
ance that though our currency may be debased, redundant and uncertain, such 
a situation will improve the price of his products. Let us remind him that he 
must buy as well as sell. 

It ought not to be difficult to convince the wage-earner that if there were 
benefits arising from a degenerated currency they would reach him least of all 
and last of all. In an unhealthy stimulation of prices, an increased cost of all 
the needs of his home must belong to his portion, while he is at the same time 
vexed with vanishing visions of increased wages and an easier lot. The pages 
of history and experience are full of the lesson. An insidious attempt is made 
to create a prejudice against the advocates of a safe and sound currency by the 
insinuation, more or less directly made, that they belong to financial and the 
business classes, and therefore are not only out of sympathy with the common 
people of the land, but for selfish and wicked purposes arc willing to sacrifice 
the interests of those outside of their circles. I believe that capital and wealth, 
through combinations and other means, sometimes gain an undue advantage; 
and it must be conceded that the maintenance of a sound currency may, in a 
sense, be invested with a greater or less importance to individuals according to 
their conditions and circumstances. 

It is, however, only a difference in degree, since it is utterly impossible that 
any one in our broad land, rich or poor, whatever may be his occupation and 
whether dwelling in a center of finance and commerce or in a remote corner of 
our domain, can be really benefited by a financial scheme not alike beneficial 
to all our people, or that any one should be excluded from a common and uni- 
versal interest in the safe character and staple value of the currency of the coun- 
try. In our relation to this question, we are all in business, for we all buy and 
sell; so we all have to do with financial operations, for we all earn money and 
spend it. We cannot escape our interdependence. Merchants and dealers are 
in every neighborhood and each has its shops and manufacturers. Wherever 
the wants of man exist, business and finance are in some degree found related in 
one direction to those whose wants they supply, and in another to the more 
extensive business and finance to which they are tributary. 

A fluctuation in prices at the seaboard is known the same day or hour in 
the remotest hamlet. The discredit or depression in financial centers of any 
form of money in the hands of the people is a signal of immediate loss every- 
where. If reckless discontent and wild experiments should sweep our cur- 
rency from its safe support, the most defenseless of all who suffer in the time of 
distress and national discredit would be the poor as they reckon their loss in 


their scanty support, and the laborer and workingman as he sees the money he 
has received for his toil shrink and shrivel in his hand when he tenders it for 
the necessaries to supply his humble home. 

Disguise it as we may, the line of battle is drawn between the forces of safe 
currency and those of silver monometallism. I will not believe that if our peo- 
ple are afforded an intelligent opportunity for sober second thought they will 
sanction schemes that, however inviting, mean disaster and confusion, nor that 
they will consent by undermining the foundation of a safe currency to endanger 
the beneficent character and purposes of their government. 

Yours truly, 

Grover Cleveland. 

I immediately published in the editorial columns of the Omaha 
World-Herald an open letter, intended to call attention to the evasion 
employed by the President. This letter, which was quite extensively 
copied at the time, is given below: 

Open Letter to President Geveland* 

Omaha, Neb., April i8, 1895. — Hon. Grover Cleveland, President — Dear 
Sir: In your recent letter declining an invitation to attend the Chicago "gath- 
ering in the interest of sound money," you say: "What is now needed more 
than anything else is a plain and simple presentation of the argument in favor 
of sound money." To "a vast number of our people" Coin's Financial School 
seems to be "a plain and simple presentation of the argument in favor of sound 
money," but some of your friends have not been pleased with the argument. 
Since you secured the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law you have very 
properly taken the place so long held by the author of that law, Senator Sher- 
man, and are now the acknowledged leader of the gold standard advocates of 
the United States, both Democratic and Republican; and to you, therefore, as 
the leader of that element, the people naturally look for "a plain and simple 
presentation of the argument in favor of sound money," as you understand 
"sound money," or, at least, for an intelligent definition of "sound money." 
What do you mean by the phrase "sound money?" In your letter you make 
frequent use of that and kindred phrases. In fact, in the course of your letter 
you speak three times of "sound money," twice of a "safe currency," once of a 
"sound currency," once of a "safe and sound currency," once of "safe and pru- 
dent financial ideas," and once of "wholesome financial doctrine." You also 
speak once of a "debased currency," once of a "degenerated currency" and 
once of "cheap money." In one place you describe your opponents as "the 
forces of silver monometallism," but you nowhere explain what you mean by 
sound money," or what you consider "cheap money." Now, everybody favors 
sound money* and a "safe currency," and a plain and simple statement of what 
you mean by these euphonious and universally admired phrases might dispel 
the war clouds and make a "line of battle" unnecessary. If by "sound money" 
you mean a gold standard, why did you avoid the use of the word "gold" in 
your letter? If by a "safe currency" you mean bimetallism, why did you avoid 
the use of the word "bimetallism" in your letter? Your letter nowhere con- 
tains a direct reference either to the gold standard or to bimetallism, but is quite 


replete with expressions which may mean a great deal or nothing, according to 
the interpretation placed upon them. Your opponents have always given you 
credit for courageously defining your position on public questions; will you 
prove their confidence well founded by stating frankly what kind of a 
financial system we shall enjoy "if the sound money sentiment abroad in the 
land" succeeds in saving "us from mischief and disaster?*' Your opponents 
candidly avow their purpose and clearly outline the legislation which they 
desire; is it not fair to ask that you define your policy with as much frankness? 
Your opponents favor the free and unlimited coinage of gold bullion into 
dollars, each containing 25.8 grains of standard gold; are you in favor of this? 
Your opponents are in favor of the free and unlimited coinage of silver bullion 
into dollars, each containing 412.5 grains of standard silver; are you in favor 
of this? If not, are you in favor of the coinage of silver bullion into dollars of 
any size? If not in favor of the free coinage of silver, what charge, if any, 
would you make for coinage? If you are not in favor of the unlimited coinage 
of silver, what limit would you suggest? Your opponents not only believe in 
the restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the 
present ratio of 16 to i, but they are in favor of taking this action at once, with- 
out waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth; do you agree 
with them? If not, do you favor the restoration of bimetallism by international 
agreement? If you are in favor of an international agreement, what ratio would 
you advise and what nations are, in your opinion, necessary to such an agree- 
ment? If you favo'* an international agreement, how long arc you willing to 
wait for it? Your opponents are in favor of making standard gold coin and 
standard silver coin equally a legal tender for all debts public and private, and 
are opposed to making a silver dollar a promise to pay a gold dollar, or a gold 
dollar a promise to pay a silver dollar; do you agree with them? Your oppo- 
nents believe that the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the 
present ratio of 16 to i by the United States, regardless of the action of other 
nations, will give us "sound money" and a "safe currency;" they not only 
believe this, but they support their position by arguments so "plausibly pre- 
sented" that even you are frightened into the belief that "the sound money 
sentiment" "must be crystallized and combined and made immediately active" 
in order to prevent their success at the polls. Can you define your position so 
clearly and defend it so plausibly as to scare your opponents as badly as they 
have scared you? Is the failure of gold standard advocates to define their pur- 
poses and defend their financial system due to lack of knowledge of the subject, 
or to an unwillingness to let the people know what they intend? If "the pro- 
prieties" of your "official place oblige" you "to forego the enjoyment" which 
you would derive from the writing of another letter explaining your last letter 
and defining your position on the financial question, please designate some one 
who has authority to speak for you so that the people may be "afforded an 
intelligent opportunity," as you suggest, to study and decide this now para- 
mount public question. 

In May of the same year Secretary Carlisle delivered an address to 
a non-partisan gathering at Memphis, Tennessee, following out the 
line of policy laid down in Mr. Cleveland's letter. This speech 


was intended to inaugurate an administration campaign in the South- 
ern States, and was followed by several similar speeches in Kentucky, 
where a State contest was in progress. 

Upon invitation of the Democrats of Memphis, I replied to Mr. 
Carlisle's speech the following evening and employed a part of his 
celebrated speech of 1878 to answer the arguments which he advanced 
at Memphis. 

The silver Democrats were so aroused by the now evident purpose 
of the gold Democrats, that a large number of them joined, with many 
Populists and silver Republicans, in a non-partisan convention, held 
at Memphis, Tennessee, in June. I attended this convention and as 
a member of the Committee on Resolutions made the acquaintance 
of many who afterwards became prominent in the fight. 

The conference appointed a National Silver Committee to carry on 
the work. Political conditions were arising, however, which made non- 
partisan action difficult, and within a few days after the adjournment of 
this convention (June 18 was the date) Senator Isham G. Harris, of 
Tennessee, Senator James K. Jones, of Arkansas, and Senator David 
Turpie, of Indiana, joined in a letter to the prominent silver Demo- 
crats of the nation, stating, among other things, "that a thorough 
organization of the Democrats of the several States who favor the 
free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver on terms of equality, 
at 16 to I, is a necessary and proper means of controlling the action 
of the National Democratic Convention of 1896, upon this vitally 
important question," and calling upon them to meet at Washington, 
D. C, on the 14th of August, 1895, to perfect an organization. This 
conference was held in the parlors of the Metropolitan Hotel, on 
the day appointed, and some thirty-seven States and Territories were 
represented. The conference resulted in the formation of the Bimetallic 
Democratic National Committee, consisting of Senator Harris, Chair- 
man, Senator Jones, Treasurer, Hon. T. O. Towles, of Missouri, 
Secretary, and Senator Turpie, Governor William J. Stone, of Mis- 
souri, Secretary of State William H. Hinrichsen, of Illinois, Congress- 
man Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, and Hon. Casey Young, of 
Tennessee the remaining members. The convention '^empowered this 
Executive Committee to select and appoint a full National Com- 
mittee, one member from each State and Territory, and extend the 
organization among Democrats throughout the Union, wherever 
deemed wise and expedient.*' In the exercise of this authority the 
committee appointed the following State committeemen: John W. 


Toxnlinson, Birmingham, Alabama; Carroll Armstrong, Morrillton, 
Arkansas; Thomas J. Clunie, San Francisco, California; C. S. Thomas, 
Denver, Colorado; Frank G. Harris, Dcala, Florida; Patrick Walsh, 
Augusta, Georgia; George Ainslie, Idaho City, Idaho; G. W. Fithian, 
Newton, Illinois; B. F. Shively, South Bend, Indiana; S. B. Evans, 
Ottumwa, Iowa; David Overmyer, Topeka, Kansas; H. A. Sommers, 
Elizabethtown, Kentucky; Melton J. Cunningham, Natchitoches, 
Louisiana; Frank K. Foster, Boston, Massachusetts; George P. Hum- 
mer, Holland, Michigan; Robert H. Taylor, Sardis, Mississippi; Lon 
V. Stephens, Jefferson City, Missouri; W. A. Qarke, Butte, Mon- 
tana; C. J. Smyth, Omaha, Nebraska; I. H. Dennis, Reno, Nevada; 
T. J. Jarvis, Greenville, North Carolina; William M. Roach, Lari- 
more. North Dakota; Allen W. Thurman, Columbus, Ohio; Thomas 
O'Day, Portland, Oregon; W. D. Mayfield, Columbia, South Carolina; 
J. M. Head, Nashville, Tennessee; Horace Chilton, Tyler, Texas; 
Peter J. Otey, Lynchburg, Virginia; C. H. Warner, Colfax, Wash- 
ington; Daniel B. Lucas, Charlestown, West Virginia; J. E. Osborne, 
Rawlins, Wyoming; William H. Barnes, Tucson, Arizona; Dr. A. J. 
Beale, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; O. W. Powers, Salt Lake City, 
Utah; W. C. Hopewell, Hillsboro, New Mexico. 

I give the names of this committee because it was largely through 
the efforts of these men that the silver Democrats secured control of 
the Democratic National Convention. The committee crystallized the 
silver sentiment in the Democratic party. 

It will be noticed that this work of organizing the silver Demo- 
crats of the nation for the capture of the National Convention was 
identical in plan, in operation and in result, with the organization 
of the silver Democrats in the State of Nebraska, perfected more than 
a year before. 

On January 22, 1896, a conference was held at Washington, at- 
tended by the representatives of the American Bimetallic League, 
the National Bimetallic Union and the National Silver Committee 
(the non-partisan one appointed at Memphis). At this conference 
it was decided to consolidate the three organizations and the new 
organization was named the American Bimetallic Union, with Hon. 
A. J. Warner, President; R. C. Chambers, of Utah, First Vice- 
President; Henry G. Miller, of Chicago, Second Vice-President; 
Thomas G. Merrill, of Helena, Montana, Treasurer; Edward B. Light, 
of Denver, Colorado, Secretary. 

This conference issued a call for the Silver Convention which met 


at St Louis, Missouri, on July 22, 1896. It was the purpose of 
those who attended the conference to give the Republican and Demo- 
cratic parties an opportunity to declare for the restoration of bimetal- 
lism and to provide for the nomination of a silver ticket, in case 
both failed to do so. The date of the Silver Convention was made to 
correspond with the date of the Populist Convention. 

It will be seen that the object of these silver organizations was 
to bring the money question before the American people as the para- 
mount issue. They were not only instrumental in doing this but also 
aided materially in bringing about co-operation between the silver 
forces in the late campaign. 

Space will not permit a reference to all of the literature circulated 
in the various localities, I shall mention three documents, however, 
which were widely read, and which exerted very considerable 
influence. The first was the speech made by Mr. Carlisle, in the 
House of Representatives, February 21, 1878. The following ex- 
tracts were the portions most used: 

I am opposed to the free coinage of either gold or silver, but in favor of 
the unlimited coinage of both metals upon terms of exact equality. 

« ♦ 4( « « « 4( 

If the execution of this measure could be intrusted to a public officer whose 
opinions upon the subject were in accord with those of the great majority of 
the American people and whose sympathies were with the struggling masses 
who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country, rather than with the 
idle holders of idle capital, the provisions alluded to would be of little con- 
sequence, because he would coin the maximum (four millions per month) 
instead of the minimum (two millions per month) allowed by the amendment 

« 4t 4t 4c 4t 4c 4c 

Instead of constant and relentless contraction; instead of a constant appre- 
ciation of money and depreciation of property, we will have expansion to the 
extent of at least two million dollars per month, and, under its influence, the 
exchangeable value of commodities, including labor, will soon begin to rise, 
thus inviting investment, infusing life into the dead industries of the country 
and quickening the pulsations of trade in all its departments. 

4c 4c 4c * 4c 4c 4c 

I know that the world's stock of precious metals is none too large, and I see no 
reason to apprehend that it will ever be so. Mankind will be fortunate indeed 
if the annual production of gold and silver coin shall keep pace with the 
annual increase of population, and industry. According to my views of the 
subject the conspiracy which seems to have been formed here and in Europe 
to destroy by legislation and otherwise from three-sevenths to one-half the 
metallic money of the world is the most gigantic crime of this or any other age. 
The consummation of such a scheme would ultimately entail more misery upon 
the human race than all the wars, pestilences, and famines that ever occurred 
in the history of the world. 


The absolute and instantaneous destruction of half the entire movable 
property of the world, including houses, ships, railroads, and other appliances 
for carrying on commerce, while it would be felt more sensibly at the moment, 
would not produce anything like the prolonged distress and disorganization of 
society that must inevitably result from the permanent annihilation of one-half 
of the metallic money of the world. 

The struggle now going on cannot cease and ought not to cease until all 
the industrial interests of the country are fully and finally cniancip«itcd from 
the heartless domination of the syndicates, stock exchanges, and other great 
combinations of money grabbers in this country and Europe. 

Let us, if we can do no better, pass bill after bill, embodying in each one 
substantial provision for relief and send them to the Executive for his approval. 
If he withholds his signature and we are unable to secure the necessary vote, 
here or elsewhere, to enact them into laws, notwithstanding his veto, let us 
as a last resort, suspend the rules, and put them into the general appropriation 
bills, with the distinct understanding that if the people can get no relief the 
Government can get no money. 

The second, was a letter written by Mr. Sherman in 1878. The 

following is a copy: 

Treasury Department, July 15. 1878. 

Dear Sir: To that part of your letter of the 12th inst., in which you ask 
my views of the matter confided in the monetary commission, I have some 
delicacy in replying very fully. During the monetary conference in Paris, 
when silver in our country was excluded from circulation by being under- 
valued, I was strongly in favor of the single standard of gold, and wrote a 
letter which you will find in the proceedings of that conference, stating briefly 
my view. At that time the wisest of us did not anticipate the sudden fall of 
silver or the rise of gold that has occurred. This uncertainty of the relation 
between the two metals is one of the chief arguments in favor of a monometallic 
system, but other arguments, showing the dangerous efTect upon industry by 
dropping one of the precious metals from the standard of value, outweigh in 
my mind all theoretical objections to the bimetallic system. I ami •thoroughly 
convinced that if it were possible for the leading commercial nations to fix 
by agreement an arbitrary relation between silver and gold, even though the 
market value might vary somewhat from time to time, it would be a measure 
of the greatest good to all nations. My earnest desire is that you may succeed 
in doing this. 

You are so well informed upon this subject that it is not worth while for me 
to enlarge upon it. The statements and documents sent you by the director of the 
mint will give in authentic form most of the material facts which bear upon the 
question, and your own investigation on the silver commission will, I am quite 
sure, supply any deficiency. Very truly yours, 

John Sherman, Secretary. 
W. S. Grosbeck, Esq., Cincinnati, O. 


The third, was a petition signed by the officers of the various labor 
organizations, and presented to Congress early in 1895. ' I pve below 
the abstract of it circulated by the Populist committee: 

Labor Petitioiu 

In view of the general distress now prevailing throughout our country, 
which has existed for so many years, and which will continue until remedial 
legislation is enacted — and all this occurring, too, at a time when our granaries 
are full to repletion, and when, in the natural order of things, our producers and 
toilers should be enjoying to the full the fruits of their hard and con- 
scientious labors — it seems to us that the time has come for united action on 
the part of those who create the wealth of the country. 

The respective demands and platforms of principles of our several organiza- 
tions set forth our opinions as to the causes that have brought about this con- 
dition of things. Inasmuch as the leading representatives and friends of all our 
organizations have placed one of the causes of the tribulations of our beloved 
Republic to the departure of our Government from the wise bimetallic policy 
of Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton, and the substitution therefor of the 
present monometallic policy recommended by European money owners, and 
advocated by their American allies, we, the undersigned officers of industrial, 
agricultural, and commercial organizations, have thought it best, at this 
particular time, to submit for your careful consideration a synopsis of the 
legislation, respecting the precious metals, enacted in this country since the 
foundation of this Government, that you may judge for yourselves as to what 
portion of such legislation was enacted in the interest of the producing and 
what in the interest of the non-producing classes, and as to whether or not the 
shrewd manipulators of our finances foresaw that the result of their work would 
be to largely help in the subjugation of the people. 

Was such legislation just? Was it honest? Does it not necessarily follow 
that demoralization of the food-producing sections of the country, through 
failure to procure reasonable prices for their products, causes the manufacturing 
sections to accumulate excessive stocks, and that, in consequence of a poor 
market, hundreds of thousands of operatives are thrown out of employment, 
thus robbing them of the power, even at the low prices, to purchase the neces- 
saries of life? 

Again, is it not obvious to every one that the striking down of one-half 
the world's volume of money makes the remaining half a comparatively easy 
matter for capitalists to control and manipulate, and that toilers, to obtain 
money for the purchase of their food supplies, are placed entirely at the mercy 
of the foreign and American money-sharks, who, by contracting the currency, 
can force a panic or famine in money at their supreme will? 

Would they be guilty of such a crime? We only say in reply, look at our 
present helpless condition. Does it not seem to you, in the light of the fact 
here given, that, where in the midst of plenty there is wide-spread suffering 
and unhappiness, there is considerable meat in the refrain from Wall street: 
"Dig on, ye toilers, dig: the legislative button that we press will do the rest!" 


Now, the question is: What do the tens of millions of victims in this 
coimtry, to the diabolical gold standard policy of Lombard and Wall streets, 
propose doing about it? Submit to subjugation, or demand in no uncertain 
tones the immediate restoration of silver as standard money? No! they will 
no longer submit to such injustice! And therefore we earnestly recommend 
the adoption of the following resolution : 

"We demand of the present Congress the immediate return to the money 
of the Constitution as established by our fathers, by restoring the free and un- 
limited coinage of both gold and silver at the present ratio of i6 to i, the coins 
of both metals to be equally full legal tender for all debts, public and private, 
as before the fraudulent demonetization of silver in 1873. 

"We also condemn the increase of the national debt in time of peace, and 
the use of interest bearing bonds at any time." 


J. R. Sovereign, 

General Master Workman, Knights of Labor. 

Jno. W. Hayes, 
General Secretary and Treasurer, Knights of Labor. 

Samuel Gompcrs, 
President of the American Federation of Labor. 

Marion Butler, 
President of the National Farmers* Alliance and Industrial Union. 

H. H. Trcnor, 
Gen'l President, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. 

P. J. McGuirc, 
Gen'l Secretary, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. 

P. M. Arthur, 
Grand Chief of the United Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. 

C. A. Robinson, 
President of the Farmers* Mutual Benefit Association. 

Frank P. Sargent, 
Grand Master of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen. 

F. W. Arnold, 
Grand Secretary and Treasurer of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen. 

John McBride, 
President of the United Mine Workers of America. 



THE Republican National Committee fixed July i6, 1896, as the day 
for the National Convention. The contest over the money ques- 
tion was largely lost sight of in the contest over the Presidential 
nomination. Except in a few Western States the State Conventions 
adopted platforms which, in varying language, declared against the free 
coinage of silver. In a few cases they reaffirmed the Republican plat- 
form of 1892. Several of the Eastern States were quite pronounced for 
gold; the New York Convention made its platform to fit New York's 
presidential candidate, Governor Morton, and, besides speaking for 
gold, suggested that the people would prefer a business administra- 
tion conducted by business men in behalf of the business interests of 
the country. In several States the conventions not only denounced 
free coinage, but condemned the agitation of the question. Some time 
before the convention convened it became evident that Mr. McKinley 
would have a majority on the first ballot, and the convention was, 
therefore, not as exciting as it might have been with a more even 
contest between the leading candidates. 

When the convention met, Hon. Charles W. Fairbanks of Indiana 
was made temporary chairman, and Senator Thurston of Nebraska 
permanent chairman. 

The exact phraseology of the money plank of the platform was 
the only important matter in dispute. The Eastern Republicans 
wanted the platform to read as strongly as possible for gold; the 
Western Republicans were anxious to secure a free-coinage plank, 
and some of the Republicans in the Central States preferred a plat- 
form which would mean gold without using the word. One west- 
ern delegate explained the position of the neutrals by saying that 
the people had an unreasonable prejudice against the word gold, and 
that it should be left out and some word substituted which had the 
same meaning but did not sound so harsh. 

Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado led the fight for free coinage 
and was ably seconded by Senators Fred T. Dubois of Idaho, R. F. 
Pettigrew of South Dakota, Frank Cannon of Utah and Lee Mantle 



of Montana, and Congressmen Charles S. Hartman of Montana, John 
F. Shafroth of Colorado, Clarence E. Allen of Utah, and others. 

The money plank of the platform reported by a majority of the 
committee was as follows: 

Money Plank of the R^tsUkan Platform. 

The Republican party is unreservedly for sound money. It caused the 
enactment of the law providing for the resumption of specie payments in 
1879; since then every dollar has been as good as gold. 

We are unalterably opposed to every measure calculated to debase our 
currency or impair the credit of our country. \Vc are, therefore, opposed 
to the free coinage of silver except by international agreement with the 
leading commercial nations of the world, which we pledge ourselves to pro- 
mote, and until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard 
must be preserved. All our silver and paper currency must be maintained at 
parity with gold, and we favor all measures designed to maintain inviolably the 
obligations of the United States and all our money, whether coin or paper, at 
the present standard, the standard of the most enlightened nations of the earth. 

Senator Teller, on behalf of the minority, submitted the following 
report and substitute : 

We, the undersigned members of the Committee on Resolutions, being 
unable to agree with a portion of the majority report which treats on the 
subject of coinage and finance, respectfully submit the following paragraph as a 
substitute therefor: "The Republican party authorizes the use of both gold and 
silver as an equal standard money, and pledges its power to secure the free 
and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at our mints at the ratio of 16 parts of 
silver to i of gold." 

Senator Teller then addressed the convention in support of the 
substitute. It was an impressive scene — a scene not to be forgotten 
by any one who witnessed it. He was deeply moved and his earnest- 
ness made even his opponents anxious to catch each word. He 
realized that nothing he could say would affect the action of the con- 
vention; he realized that for the present he was bidding farewell 
to the Republican party. He had been identified with that party from 
its birth, had received distinguished honors at its hands, had faithfully 
defended its principles and its policies, and he spoke like one whose 
heart was almost broken at the thought of separation from his polit- 
ical associates. 

While the delegates were almost unanimously against the course 
which he advocated, they offered but little interruption, and that was 
at once checked by Chairman Thurston. It is only fair to say, in this 
connection, that the majority, while at all times maintaining control 
of the convention, treated the Silver Republicans with all the courtesy 


and consideration which could have been asked, and Senator Thurs- 
ton, as the presiding officer, was eminently fair and impartial in his 

I reproduce in full the speech of Senator Teller; it deserves to be 
preserved for succeeding generations: 

Senator Tdkr'j Farewell Addres. 

Gentlemen of the Convention: I will not attempt to inflict upon you a 
discussion of the great financial question which is dividing the people, not 
only of this country, but of the whole world. The few moments allotted to 
me by the convention will not enable me to more than state in the briefest 
possible manner our objections to the financial plank proposed for your con- 
sideration. I am a practical man, and I recognize the conditions existing in 
this convention, foreshadowed, as they were, by the action of the committee 
selected by the representatives assembled from the diflPcrent States. 

This plank, or this proposition, was presented to the whole committee and 
by it rejected. Loyalty to my own opinion, consideration for the great interest 
that is felt in this country compel me, in the face of unusual difHculties, 
to present this substitute for your consideration, not with that bounding 
hope or with that assurance that I have fch in presenting similar propositions 
in other bodies where I have met with greater measure of success than I 
can hope for here. The great and supreme importance of this question is 
alone my excuse now for the few words that I shall say to you. 

In a public capacity, I have dealt with this subject now for twenty years. 
I represent a State that produces silver, but I want to say to you here and now 
that my advocacy of the proposition is not in the slightest degree influenced 
or controlled by that fact. 

I contend for it because I believe there can be no proper financial system 
in any country in the world that does not recognize this principle of bimetallism. 

I contend for it because, since 1873, when it was ruthlessly stricken from our 
statutes, there has been a continued depreciation of all the products of human 
labor and human energy. 

I contend for it because in this year of 1896 the American people are in 
greater distress than they ever were in their history. 

I contend for it because our present financial system is, in my judgment, 
the great weight, the great incubus, that has weighed down enterprise and 
destroyed progress in this favored land of ours. 

I contend for it because I believe the progress of my country is dependent 
on it. 

I contend for it because I believe the civilization of the world is to be 
determined by the rightful or wrongful solution of this financial question. 

I am tolerant of those who differ from me. I act from my judgment, en- 
lightened as best I have been able to enlighten it by many years of study and 
of thought. In my judgment the American people in the whole line of their 
history have never been called upon to settle a question of greater importance 
to them than this question of the currency. The great contest in which many of 
you participated which was to determine whether we should have two flags 


or one was not more important to the American people than the question 
of a proper solution of what shall be the money system of this land. 

I have said enough to convince you that I think that this is not a question of 
policy, but a question of principle. It is not a mere idle thing, but one on 
which hangs the happiness, the prosperity, the morality and the independence 
of American labor and American producers. 

Confronted for the first time in the history of this glorious party of ours, 
confronted, I say, for the first time with a danger of a financial policy that, 
in my judgment, will be destructive to all the great interests of this land, 
we are called upon to give this provision of our platform our adhesion or 
rejection. Mr. President, I do not desire to say unkind or unfriendly things, 
and I will say in a moment, and only a moment, why I object to this provision 
of this platform. The Republican party has never been the party 
of a single standard. It was a bimetallic party in its origin and has been in 
all its history. In i888 it declared for bimetallism; in 1892 it declared for 
bimetallism. In 1896 it declares for a single gold standard. 

Mr. President, in 1888 we carried the State that I here represent; for 
whom? For the Republican nominee; we carried it on a bimetallic platform. 
We carried it with a majority that was equal, considering our vote, to that 
of any State in the Union. It has been a Republican State from the hour of its 
admission. It has kept in the Senate Republican Senators, and in the House 
Republican members. I promised you that I would not discuss the silver 
question, and I will not do so further except to repeat that this platform is such 
a distinct departure from any policy heretofore enunciated by the Republican 
party that it challenges our Republicanism to accept it. 

Mr. President, the platform contains some platitudes about international 
conferences. It provides that we shall maintain the gold standard in this 
country until the principal nations of the world shall agree that we may 
do otherwise. Sir, this is the first great gathering of Republicans since this 
party was organized that has declared the inability of the American people to 
control their own affairs. 

To my horror, this declaration comes from the great political party 
of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Do you believe that the American 
people are too weak to actually maintain a financial system commensurate with 
the greatness of the country of their own fruition? Gentlemen of the conven- 
tion, you will have no bimetallic agreement with all the great commercial 
nations of the world; it cannot be obtained. Therefore, this is a declaration 
that the gold standard is to be put upon this country and kept upon it for all 
time. Do you believe that Great Britain — the great commercial nation of 
the world — our powerful competitor in commerce and trade, will ever agree to 
open her mints to the free coinage of silver? Or consent that we shall open 
ours as long as she gets the advantage of the low prices and the declining 
values that have been brought to this country by the adoption of a gold 
standard? We are the great debtor nation of the world. Great Britain is the 
great creditor. We pay her every year millions and hundreds of millions of 
dollars which count as income on her investments in this country or interest 
on her loans. The gold standard, in my judgment, lowers prices and decreases 
values. Great Britain buys of us millions and millions more than she sells, 


and she buys upon a gold standard — a lowering and depreciating standard. 
How long do you think it will be before she will agree to a system of finance 
that raises the price of the farm products, or the products of our mines in 
ihis country? 

It is a solemn declaration that the Republican party intends to maintain 
low prices and stagnate business for all time to come. 

There is a beautiful provision in this piatform about the tariff. Mr. 
President, I subscribe to that I believe in a protective tariff. I have advocated 
it for forty years. But it is my solemn conviction that a protective tariff cannot 
be maintained upon a gold standard. The tariff protection principle is for 
the raising of the price of human toil. It is for giving to the producer ample 
compensation for his labor. The gold standard, on the contrary, everywhere 
that it is enforced, is for the purpose of reducing values. 

Now, gentlemen of the convention, I am going to make this simple 
objection as to the protective system, that it is in danger, and then I will call 
your attention to one other fact, and then I will leave it to your judgment 
whether this platform shall be adopted or rejected. Under existing conditions 
we undoubtedly have a gold standard. I do not deny that, but what I have 
sought for twenty years is to change it to the bimetallic system. I have be- 
lieved, and I now believe, that when the Almighty created these twin metals He 
intended that the world should use them for the purposes for which they were 
created. And when He blessed this land of ours with more gold and more 
silver than any other country "in the world, He meant that we should use them 
as standard money. We today reverse the traditions of our country and declare 
we will use only one. If the American people are in favor of that system I 
have nothing to say. I must submit to the majority vote and the majority voice 
in this country of ours. I do not believe this party of ours, if it could be 
polled, is favorable of the single gold standard. I believe that go per cent, of the 
American people are in favor of bimetallism of the old-fashioned kind 
that eixsted in this country up to 1873. 

Mr. President, and gentlemen of the convention, I promised you that I 
would consume but little of your time and I believe I am allowed only a few 
minutes more in which I can rapidly address you. I want, however, to say a 
few things which may seem to you to be personal and which ought not to 
be introduced in an audience like this. I must beg your indulgence if I seem to 
transcend the proprieties of this occasion, if I shall say something personal 
to myself. 

I have formed my convictions on this great question after twenty years of 
study — after twenty years of careful thought and careful reading. I have 
been trained in a school that it seems to me ought to fit me fairly well for 
reaching just conclusions from established facts. I have formed my conclusions 
to such an extent that they have become binding on my conscience. I believe that 
the adoption of the gold standard in the United States will work great hardship, 
that it will increase the distress, and that no legislation touching the tariff 
can remove the difficulties that now all admit prevail in this land. I believe 
that the whole welfare of my race is dependent upon a rightful solution of this 
question; that the morality, the civilization, nay, the very religion of my 
country is at stake in this contest. I know, and you know, that men in 



distress are neither patriotic nor brave. You and I know that hunger and 
distress will destroy patriotism and love of country. If you have love of coun- 
try, patriotic fervor and independence, you must have your citizens comfortably 
fed and comfortably clothed. That is what made me a Republican in 1853; that 
is what made me a Republican during all these years — because I believed that 
the Republican party stood for the great masses of men; that its legislation was 
intended to lift up and elevate and hold up and sustain the unfortunate and the 
distressed, and give all American citizens equal opportunities before the law. 
I do not believe that these blessings can be had with the gold standard. 

You may doubt my judgment, and many of you will. But, shall I doubt 
it? I must act upon my judgment and not upon yours. I must answer to my 
conscience and not to my neighbors*. I must do my duty as it is presented to nic 
and not as presented to you. I say to you now, that I may hasten my remarks, 
that with the solemn conviction upon me that this gold plank means ultimate 
disaster and distress to my fellow man, I cannot subscribe to it, and if it is 
adopted I must, as an honest man, sever my connection with the political 
organization that makes that one of the main articles of its faith. 

I repeat here what I said yesterday in the committee on resolutions — I 
would not, upon my own judgment alone, carefully as I have attempted to 
prepare it, dare to take this step. My friends, I am sustained in my views 
of the danger that is coming to us and coming to the world by the adoption 
of the gold standard by the intelligence of the entire world. They may say 
that the silver question is a craze. Let me tell you that the best thought of 
Europe, the best thought of the world, is with the advocates of bimetallism. 
All the great political teachers of Europe, with the exception of five or six, arc 
the pronounced advocates of bimetallism — unrestricted and unrestrained bimetal- 
lism. All of the great teachers of political economy in the European colleges, 
without exception, favor bimetallism. 

My own judgment, based, as I have said to you, on careful preparation 
and careful study for twenty years, bears me out and puts me in accord with 
them, and I would be recreant to my trust, given to me by the people of my 
State, if I failed to protest here, and if I failed when the Republican party 
makes this one of the tenets of its faith, to sever my connection from that 

Mr. President, I ask your kind permission to say a few things personal to 
myself, and when I have said them, having told you what my conscience 
demands that I should do, I will leave this question for your consideration. 

Do you suppose that myself and my associates who act with me and take 
the same view of this question that I do — do you suppose that we can take 
this step without distress? Do you suppose that we could take it for any 
personal advantage or any honor that could be conferred upon us? We say it 
is a question of duty. You may nominate in this convention any man you 
choose; if you will put him on the right kind of a platform I will vote for him. 
You may use any methods to nominate him that you think proper; I will defer 
to your judgment and support him, if the platform is a right one. But when 
you ask me here, now, to surrender to you my principles, as an honest 
man I cannot do that. I realize what it will cost us. I realize the grilles and 
sneers and the contumely that will be heaped upon us. But, my fellow citizens, 
I have been through this before, before the political party to which you belong 


had a being. I have advocated a cause more unpopular than the silver cause. 
I have stood for the doctrine of free men, free homes and free speech. I am 
used to detraction; I am used to abuse and I have had it heaped upon me 
without stint. 

When the Republican party was organized I was there. It has never had 
a national candidate since it was organized that my voice has not been raised 
in his support. It has never had a great principle enunciated in its platform 
that has not had my approbation, until now. With its distinguished leaders, 
its distinguished men of forty years, I have been in close communion and 
close friendship. I have shared in its honors and in its few defeats and 
disasters. Do you think that we can sever our connection with a party like this 
unless it be as matter of duty — a duty not to our respective States only, but a 
duty to all people of this great land? 

Mr. President, there are few men in the Republican party who have been 
honored more than I have by the people of the State in which they live. 
There are few men in this convention or anywhere else who have been longer 
connected with this organization than I have been. There are few men in 
it who have been more active, and none in it, no, not one, who have been more 
attached to the great principles of this party than I have been; and I cannot 
go out of it without heart burnings and a feeling that no man can appreciate 
who has not endured it. And yet I cannot, before my country and my God, 
agree to that provision that shall put upon this country a gold standard, and 
I will not. 

And I do not care what may be the result. If it takes me out of political 
life, I will go out with a feeling that at least I maintained my consistency and 
my manhood, and that my conscience is clear and that my country will have 
no right to find fault with me. 

I beg your pardon for saying things so personal, but yet if a personal 
act that to some implies perfidy and dishonor is about to be taken, I think it 
but just to myself and my associates that I should proclaim to you that we take 
this step, not in anger, not in pique, not because we dislike the nominee, 
prospectively or otherwise, but because our consciences require as honest men 
that we should make this sacrifice — for sacrifice we feel that it is. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your kind attention. Retiring from you as I 
do, perhaps, never again to have an opportunity of addressing a Republican 
convention, I cannot do so without saying that, after all, I have in my heart 
a hope — nay, I have an expectation — ^that better counsels will prevail, and that 
if you should be foolish enough to adopt this platform and force us to leave 
the Republican party, better counsels will prevail and, ultimately, on a true 
Republican platform, sustaining Republican principles, I may have the in- 
estimable privilege of again addressing you. 

The substitute was voted down by a vote of about ten to one, and 
the platform submitted by the majority of the committee was adopted 
by substantially the same vote. 

As soon as the result was announced, Senator Teller and those 
who had acted with him left the convention hall, cheered by those in 
sympathy with them, and hissed by a few opponents. 



Hon. William McKinley, Jr., of Ohio, was then nominated as the 
Republican candidate for the presidency, and Hon. Garrett A. Hobart, 
of New Jersey, for the vice-presidency. 

I was an interested spectator at the convention. Occupying a 
chair in the space reserved for the press, I sent to the Omaha World- 
Herald comments upon the important incidents of the convention. As 
soon as the platform was adopted, I wired the paper the following: 

I suggest the following silver plank for the Chicago convention: We are 
unalterably opposed to the single gold standard and demand the immediate 
restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present 
legal ratio of i6 to i, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation 
on earth. We believe that the standard silver dollar should be a full legal 
tender, equally with gold coin, for all debts, public and private, and we favor 
such legislation as is necessary to prevent the demonetization of any kind of 
legal tender money by private contract. We further insist that all Government 
coin obligations should be payable in either gold or silver, at the option of the 

This suggestion was published in the World-Herald at the time. 
Later, at the Chicago convention, I suggested that the words "for the 
future," be added in the sentence in regard to gold contracts in order 
to show that we did not mean to interfere with contracts already in 



THE Silver Republicans met soon after leaving the convention hall 
and laid plans for future action. On the 19th of June an address, 
the writing of which devolved largely upon Senator Cannon, 
was issued, setting forth the reasons which led the Silver Republicans 
to leave their party. This address can hardly be surpassed in strength 
and terseness. It reads as follows : 

Address of Silver Reptibltcatis. 

Obeying the call of duty, and justified by the common citizenship of this 
Republic, we address this communication to the people and the forthcoming 
conventions of the United States. In doing so we claim no authority or right 
other than that which belongs to every man to express personal conviction; 
but we respectfully solicit the co-operation of all who believe that the time 
has come for a return to the simpler and more direct method of naming men 
for national service than has been obtained in recent years. 

Political party organization is necessary because without it the individual 
voter is dumb; but the party is only the means, not the end; it is the voice 
and not the sense. As the world advances in this wonderful epoch of intellec- 
tual development and physical improvement there is a constant requirement for 
better things. The individual feels that requirement and heeds it, or he fails 
in life's endeavor. Parties must also obey the same law. It follows, therefore, 
that the moment a party shall choose to stand still or to retrogress it is no 
longer efficient to achieve the end to which the people are necessarily destined. 
There is no sanctity in mere party name; and the mark of decay is set on indi- 
vidual strength in a nation, when the absolute rule of political organization 
coerces men from the truth for the sake of expediency and establishes insincere 
submission to partisan rule for the sake of power. 

Recognizing the value and the splendid achievements of political parties in 
this country, as elsewhere, we are yet constrained to believe that for more than 
twenty years no one of them has been entirely sufficient for the needs of the 
people. The great trend to better things, resting in the hearts and pur- 
poses of all men, has been stayed during the latter part of this 
generation by the failure of parties to express in their achievements the highest 
hope and aspiration of the mass of the people who constitute the parties. 
And there has been growing in this country — swelling with each recurrence 
of national election — a great mass of independent thinkers and voters, which, 
failing within itself to control, has gravitated between the two great parties. 
Since 1872 (excepting possibly the election of 1876) the pendulum has swung 
from side to side with each four years. In 1872 the Republican party elected 



the President; in 1876 the Democracy claimed the election; in 1880 the Re- 
publicans elected; in 1884 the Democrats elected; in 1888 the Republicans 
elected; in 1892 the Democrats elected; in 1896 (until within a few weekis) it has 
been conceded that the Republicans would elect. What has been the cause of 
this mighty oscillation of a mass which this year has probably obtained control- 
ling proportions? Every man can answer to himself. If he has been an 
observer, if he has had interests that were affected, if he has felt a hope to 
see greater justice done and has seen that hope blasted, he knows that the 
general dissatisfaction has arisen from the fact that party promises made were 
broken to the people by party performance; he knows that so soon as the 
election was over and successful candidates installed they became the servitors 
of the party and the advocates of a narrow and non-progressive policy within 
which alone there seemed to be an assurance of selfish safety and partisan 
approval. During all this period wc have lacked a great constructive adminis- 
tration. No new social truth has been put forward in an eflFective way. While 
in all the departments of physical life there have been developments and 
achievements of ease and comfort to the favored of mankind, in the still 
greater and more important domain of the social reform we have stood still 
or retrogressed. 

It is not that the people have not felt the stirrings of determination, that 
this inaction has endured; but because of the rule of party which has largely 
controlled men in and out of office. It has become a source of reproach to any 
man that he should dare to renounce allegiance to organization. Men have 
been expected to submit their views to the dictation of conventions, although it 
is common knowledge that conventions have been swayed to views and declara- 
tions not the most approved by the mass of the people nor progressive for their 

We do not arrogate to ourselves one iota more of intelligence, patriotism or 
courage than is possessed by any of our fellow citizens. But we feel that 
the time has come for the performance of a duty to the country; and for our 
part, though we shall stand alone, we will make an endeavor in the direction 
of that duty. Parties may outlive their usefulness; the truth never becomes 
obsolete. Every generation of freemen has the right to affirm the truths of past 
knowledge and present acquirement; and if the enforcement of these truths shall 
make necessary a departure from party organization, the people have this right 
and will exercise it until old parties shall return to the truth or new parties shall 
be created to effect it into law. 

If the voices which have sounded to us from every State in this Union 
are an indication of the real feeling, this year is the appointed time for the 
people to assert themselves, through such mediums as may give best promise 
of the achievement of justice. But whether we are mistaken or not concerning 
the general sentiment in the United States, we have not mistaken our own 
duty in withdrawing from the Republican convention, feeling that it would be 
better to be right and with the minority in apparent defeat than to be wrong 
with the majority in apparent triumph. 

We hold that in the great work of social evolution in this country, monetary 
reform stands as the first requisite. Without it there can no longer be safety or 
general prosperity. No policy, however promising of good results, can take its 


place. Continuation during the next four years upon the present financial 
system will bring down upon the American people that cloud of impending 
evil, to avert which should be the first thought of statesmen and the first prayer 
of patriots. Our very institutions are at stake. Today, with the rapidly 
increasing population, with widely swelling demands, the basis of our money 
is relatively contracting; and the people are passing into a servitude all the 
more dangerous because it is not physically apparent. The nation itself, as to 
other nations, is losing the sturdy courage which could make it defiant in the 
face of injustice and international wrong. From the farmer and the tradesman 
to the Government there is apparent the same shrinking from giving offense, 
lest the vengeance of some offended financial power shall descend. The busi- 
ness man submits some portion of his judgment and his will, and the nation 
submits some portion of its international right lest some mighty foreign creditor 
shall make destructive demands. Where will all this end if the people shall 
decline to assert themselves? Where will it end if the older parties in their 
determination to maintain themselves in power for power's sake alone shall 
refuse to recognize the right and the hope of humanity? 

This country can not much longer exist free and independent against all the 
rest of the world, nor can its people much longer be free in the noblest sense 
of the term if the United States, a debtor nation, shall follow a policy dictated by 
creditor nations. We produce all of the necessaries of life. Other nations con- 
sume our product. In the race for existence it is a constant struggle between 
producer and consumer. Our present system of money deliberately submits to 
the desire and the profit of creditor nations, leaving us in the mass, and as 
individuals, a prey to the money gathering and the deadly cheapening of the 
old world. As the debt increases on the masses of the nation toward creditors 
abroad, the price of human production on the farm and in the workshop is de- 
creased with appalling rapidity, exacting more and more toil from our citizens to 
meet the given demand, and holding over their heads a threat of the day when 
confiscation to meet their obligations will leave them bare and defenseless. 
The only remedy is to stop falling prices — the deadliest curse of national life. 
Prices never will cease falling under the single gold standard. 

The restoration of bimetallism by this country will double the basis of 
our money system — in time it will double the stock of primary money of the 
world — will stop falling prices and steadily elevate them until they will regain 
their normal relation to the volume of debts and credits in the world. Bimetal- 
lism will help to bring about the great hope of every social reformer, every 
believer in the advancement of the race, who realize that the instability of 
prices has been the deadly foe of our toilers and the servant of the foreign in- 
terest gatherer. Bimetallism will help to bring the time when a certain ex- 
penditure of human toil will produce a certain financial result. Who among the 
great masses of our people in the United States but feels that his lot would 
be made better, his aspiration take new wings, if he could know in the perform- 
ance of his labor what would be the price of his product? 

Is not this purpose worth the attention of the people as individuals, and 
worth the attention of political conventions yet to be held in this year 1896? 
Is not this so great an end that all who believe in the possibility of attaining it 
by the means proposed can yield something of their partisanship both in con- 


ventions and at the polls? It is in the hope that the masses and the remaining 
conventions will have the courage and the generosity to ally for this purpose 
that we have dared to offer our views to the people of the United States; and 
because in the past, there has lacked a rallying point for the masses, who 
hold as we do to this belief, we venture upon an act trusting that it will be re- 
ceived in the same spirit of conciliation, concession and hope that we put it 

We have endeavored in a plain way to set the matter before the eyes of our 
fellow citizens. We invoke the union of all men and all parties who believe 
that the time has come for the triumph of justice. It is an hour when the 
people may speak for themselves as individuals and through conventions yet 
to be held. It is the right of every citizen to indicate his preference. With this 
in view, we offer to the forthcoming convention and to the people the name of 
a man for the Presidency of the United States whose life, in public and in 
private, represents those distinguished virtues which adorned the days and the 
deeds of the earlier time of this Republic; a return to which virtues is requisite 
for the prosperity and contentment of the people and the perpetuity and com- 
manding example of free institutions. That name is Henry M. Teller — a man 
of the people and for the people. He is of no section. His experience and 
service, his devotion to the common justice and the common cause of his 
fellow citizens has been as wide as the country. We believe that the people of 
the United States have him in their hearts as he has had their interests in his 
purpose through all the work of an exalted life. 

It is not merely as the exponent of monetary reform that we present this 
man to the people. It is true that he has waged a mighty war for the restoration 
of the money of the Constitution, and his name has been identified as that 
of no other living man with this great cause. But had his services been less 
demanded and less noticed in this direction, the people would still have recog- 
nized in him for other labors a statesman of the purest type. Ilis only poverty 
has been that of purse; in all things else — in the generosities of man to man, 
in kindliness of deeds for his fellows, and in the study and the doings of a 
mighty career, he has been one of the most opulent American citizens of any 

In submitting this name to the people we remind them that just a genera- 
tion ago from the heart of the boundless West, and touched by the finger of 
God, there arose an emancipator who was powerful in the work of human 
deliverance. By his wisdom and courage, providentially directed, millions were 
set free and the nation kept in its holy union. If others shall see this oppor- 
tunity as we see it, if our fellow citizens shall see this duty as we see it, that 
sublime history may be repeated, and another man — clothed in the majesty of 
devotion to the race — will be lifted to power where, by his wisdom and courage, 
providentially directed, more millions may be made free from chains as galling 
as those of actual slavery, and the nation may be preserved in the unity of its 
mission to the world. 


Fred T. Dubois. Chas. H. Brickenstein, 

R, F. Pettigrcw, Thomas Kearns, 

Frank J. Cannon, C. J. Hart, 


Chas. S. Hartman. L. Price, 

Clarence E. Allen. J.acob J. Elliott, 

Ben E. Rich, 6. J. Salisbury, 

A. S. Robertson, J. B. Overton, 

A. C. Cleveland, Frank C. Goudy, 

Willis Sweet, John F. Vivian, 

Amasa B. Campbell, J. W. Rockefeller, 

Archie M. Stevenson, Robt. W. Bonyage, 

Enoch Strother, Nevada, John M. Williams, 

James M. Downing, L. M. Earl. 

After the Chicago convention, an address was issued by Senators 
Idler, Dubois and Mantle, Congressmen Towne, Shafroth, Hart- 
man, Wilson and other leading silver Republicans, giving their 
reasons for supporting the Democratic ticket. This address is given 


Silver Republicans Declare for the Democratic Ticket* 

We deem it fitting that we, who have heretofore afRliated with the National 
Republican party and who have rejected the financial plank of the platform 
adopted at St. Louis and refused to support the nominee of the convention, 
should state our position in the Presidential campaign, and give briefly our 
reasons in support thereof. 

When certain delegates to the National Republican Convention repudiated 
the financial plank of the platform and withdrew from the convention, we 
determined that we would give our support to such candidates as should ap- 
pear most willing and capable of aiding in the restoration of silver to its 
rightful place as standard money. 

The Democratic party, in its Chicago convention, has taken a position in 
its platform so pronouncedly favorable to silver, and has nominated candi- 
dates of such unquestionable convictions in favor of the bimetallic policy and 
of such high personal character that we have determined to give them our 
support. We support such candidates because they represent the great principle 
of bimetallism, which we believe to be the cause of humanity and civilization, 
and the paramount question now before the American people. 

We therefore announce that we shall by voice and vote support Messrs. 
Bryan and Sewall for President and Vice-President, and we appeal to all 
citizens, and especially to Republicans who feel as we do that gold mono- 
metallism would be of lasting injury to the country, to act with us in securing 
their election. 

The Democrats who believe in the gold standard are announcing their in- 
tention to support Mr. McKinley, or proposing to put a third candidate in 
the field for the avowed purpose of aiding Mr. McKinley's election. A great 
number of leading and influential Democratic journals have declared they 
will support the Republican nominees. It is evident there is to be a union 
of forces on the part of the advocates and supporters of the gold standard 
to elect Mr. McKinley and a Congress favorable to him, which will sup- 
port the financial policy outlined in the Republican platform. 

To those who bcHcve in bimetallism, which means the equal treatment 

ScMAA'^V^ ,oi^-<>d^»^vV^, 


of both gold and silver at the mints of the nation, there is but one course 
to pursue, and that is to unite all the silver forces and to oppose with all our 
might the candidate representing the policy which we believe is fraught 
with disaster to the nation and ruin to the people. 

Gold monometallism means the shifting to gold alone, as primary money, 
all the burdens of commerce and credit formerly borne by gold and silver, 
and as the world's stock of these metals has always been about equal in 
amount, it means the doubling of the burden upon gold. Doubling the burden 
upon gold means doubling the demand for the same, and doubling the de- 
mand, of necessity doubles the value thereof. This gradual shifting to gold 
of all the burdens of both gold and silver has caused a gradual and steady 
increase in the value of every dollar redeemable in gold, and hence a gradual 
and steady decline in the value of every commodity that is measured by that 

The representatives and supporters of Mr. McKinley consented to the in- 
sertion in the St. Louis platform of the gold standard declaration thinly 
veneered by a declaration for bimetallism, "when the leading commercial nations 
of the world should consent," but until that consent was secured the gold 
standard must be maintained. It is well known that this consent cannot be 
secured from Great Britain, and that such declaration for bimetallism means 
nothing with this limitation upon it. Mr. McKinley consented to the declara- 
tion for the gold standard in the platform, and in his recent speeches has 
accepted it, and has become the advocate thereof; he has shown by his speeches 
heretofore made that he understood the danger of the gold standard and 
the distress which would be inflicted upon the American people by its adop- 
tion, and yet he pledges the people to support and maintain that 
system, and fasten upon them all the evils of the financial system, which 
he has heretofore repudiated, if they will make him President. Whatever may 
have been his attitude on the money question in the past he must inevitably 
hereafter support the same financial system that the present Democratic ad- 
ministration has, and, if elected, must continue the policy of Mr. Cleveland in 
the sale of bonds in time of peace. Hence, with the success of Mr. McKinley 
we may look for a continued increase of the public debt and the sale of 
bonds to maintain the gold standard. 

That the condition of the country is not satisfactory, all admit. The 
producers of wealth are not receiving fair and proper compensation for their 
labor, whether in field, factory or mine; enterprise has ceased; values are con- 
stantly declining; labor is unemployed; discontent and distress prevail to an 
extent never before known in the history of this country, and no reason 
can be found for such an unhappy condition save in a vicious monetary sys- 
tem. Those who profess to deplore the present financial condition and op- 
pose the free coinage of silver are divided in opinion as to the cause of 
the present condition. Some declare that it is because we have too much 
tariff; others that we have not enough; while the fact exists that every gold 
standard country in the world, whether it has a high or a low tariff, is now 
and has been during recent years, in the throes of a financial panic; and every 
silver standard country, compared with its former condition, is enjoying an 
industrial development and degree of prosperity hitherto unknown in its 



history. While thus differing in opinion, they unite in asserting that the 
gold standard must be maintained until foreign countries shall signify their 
willingness that the American people shall exercise the rights of freemen 
and create a financial system of their own. If we overlook the humiliation 
and degradation we must feel on account of such a declaration of financial 
dependency, we may well inquire when the consent of the leading commercial 
nations will be obtained. 

No one who has read the proceedings of the three international monetary 
conferences that have already been held, or who has examined the imprac- 
ticable propositions presented at those conferences, can for a moment believe 
that any international bimetallic agreement can ever be made with the con- 
sent of all "the leading commercial nations of the world." When will 
Great Britain, controlled as she is and ever will be by the creditor classes, 
who collects vast sums of money for interest due her and her citizens, who 
buys of us annually many more millions than she sells to us, and whose 
interest it is to make the pound sterling purchase as much of our products 
as possible, consent that we shall be financially independent as we are supposed 
to be politically independent? When did the creditor classes of Great Britain 
ever give up or in any way yield an advantage such as they now possess 
through the maintenance of the gold standard? There is no hope for in- 
ternational bimetallism until the United States shall establish bimetallism for 
itself, and when that is done, international bimetallism may be secured without 
the consent of Great Britain. The United States on all other subjects of 
legislation acts independently of any other nation on earth. By what pro- 
cess of reasoning is its right, authority or ability to legislate upon this, 
the most important subject with which it has to deal, questioned or denied? 

With a nation equal in wealth and power to one-fourth of the world, it is 
cowardly to say that we must ask the permission of Great Britain to es- 
tablish and maintain a financial policy of our own. Believing, as we do, that 
a return to the monetary system especially recognized in the Constitution 
and completely provided for by law from 1792 till 1873, affords the only 
ground of hope for the betterment of the distressed condition of all the classes 
except those who live by the increment that money loaned gives to those 
who loan it, we appeal to all classes to rally to the support of the only 
candidates whose success indicates any hope of relief. 

Let the merchant and business man whose dwindling and lessened profits 
have, despite his care and economy, brought him face to face with pros- 
pective bankruptcy and ruin, the professional man, whose best efforts scarcely 
afford him compensation for his labor alone, the farmer, the continually fall- 
ing prices of whose products have left him no returns for capital invested and 
work performed, and last but not least, let the grand army of laboring 
men so called, the artisan, the mechanic, and the miner, and every one who 
depends upon his daily labor for his daily bread, look about him and ob- 
serve the great number of those who vainly seek for a chance to work — 
upon the great army of enforced idlers^ — and one and all resolve to try, 
not an experiment (for bimetallism is not an experiment), but rather a return 
to a policy that throughout the vicissitudes of our nation's infancy, through 
the internecine struggle of its manhood kept us a great, free and prosperous 


nation, in which labor was not only respected and employed, but was so 
compensated that want and distress, such as now weigh upon us, were 
unknown. Let the lesson of history, too recent and too plain to be gain- 
said or denied, be heeded, and let there be no fear that a system that so won- 
derfully protected labor, developed business enterprise and secured to the 
nation a contented and prosperous people in the past, will do aught but bring 
to us a return of like prosperity, the prediction of disaster of our opponents 
to the contrary notwithstanding. 

In Mr. Bryan the Chicago convention placed at the head of its ticket a 
gentleman of exceptional ability and of high character. No man of his age 
was better known throughout the United States than he. A member of 
Congress for four years, he commanded the admiration and respect of all 
his associates in that body as a scholarly statesman and profound thinker. 
No man had ever assailed his character or in any way questioned his in- 
teg^rity or moral worth. His character is a fit example for the young men 
of this country. He has shown in all his public utterances that he loves 
his country and his countrymen, and that he sympathizes with them in their 
distress. He has also shown that he believed the financial system which makes 
gold the standard of value was in a great degree the cause of the depression 
and financial distress prevalent throughout the land; that the condition now 
existing will continue while the present monetary system lasts, and that he 
would fain return to the use of both gold and silver as they were used prior 
to 1873, an<l I'c has proposed such a change of the financial system by the 
usual constitutional methods. 

Such was the character and such the political opinions of the candidate 
known to his countrymen, who by their representatives in convention, selected 
from every State in the Union, put him in nomination for the highest office 
within the gift of the American people. 

This is a critical period in our national history. Our industrial and 
financial independence of other nations and peoples is involved in this cam- 
paign, and we firmly believe there will be no return of prosperity until we 
shall have changed our financial system so as to restore the bimetallic sys- 
tem established by the fathers of the Republic; and so believing, we urge 
all friends of gold and silver as standard money and the opponents of a 
single gold standard to give to Mr. Bryan and Mr. Sewall their hearty sup- 
port. In advising this course we do not consider it necessary that they shall 
abandon or surrender their political views on other questions. 

Profoundly impressed with the importance of the issues of this cam- 
paign, for ourselves and our associates we respectfully submit the foregoing 
to the candid consideration of the American people. 



IN pursuance of a call issued by the Bimetallic Democratic National 
Committee, the leading silver Democrats met at the Sherman 
House in Chicago on June 30th, for the purpose of deciding upon 
the course to be pursued in the National Convention. All were 
agreed that it was both wise and necessary for the silver 
Democrats to secure the temporary organization and control the 
convention at every step. It was generally understood that 
the National Committee, having a majority against silver, would 
recommend as temporary chairman some one hostile to bi- 
metallism and at the conference it was decided to urge the minority 
of the committee to move to substitute the name of a silver Demo- 
crat for the name to be suggested by the majority of the commit- 
tee. When the convention was called to order this plan was carried 
out. The committee, through its chairman, Hon. William F. Har- 
rity, recommended Senator David B. Hill, of New York, as temporary 
chairman, while Hon. Henry D. Clayton, of Alabama, proposed the 
name of Senator John W. Daniel, of Virginia, and moved that his 
name be substituted for the name of Senator Hill. Then followed a 
discussion between the friends of the two candidates, the gold Demo- 
crats insisting that it was contrary to precedent and discourteous to 
the committee to reject its recommendation, while the silver Demo- 
crats asserted that the committee should have respected the wishes 
of the convention, whose servant it was. 

As the National Committee had seated the gold delegation from 
Nebraska, I was present during the temporary organization as a spec- 
tator only, and was rather amused at the apparent earnestness with 
which the gold men begged the convention not to humiliate them 
by turning down their candidate; the very obvious answer to their 
argument being that they could have avoided humiliation by recog- 
nizing the right of the majority to rule. Upon roll call, the vote 
stood 556 for Daniel, and 349 for Hill. 

On taking the chair, Senator Daniel paid a well-deserved compli- 
ment to Mr. Harrity, who had presided at a very trying time with 
perfect fairness and impartiality. I give Mr. Daniel's speech in full: 



Mr. Darnells Speecfi* 
Mr. Chairman of the National Democratic Committee: In receiving from 
your hands this gavel as the temporary presiding officer of this convention, 
I beg leave to express a sentiment, which I am sure is unanimous, that no 
national convention was ever presided over with more ability or with more 
fairness than by yourself. I can express no better wish for myself than that 
I may be able in some feeble fashion to model my conduct by your model 
and to practice by your example. 

Gentlemen: The high position to which you have chosen me is accepted 
with profound gratitude for the honor which it confers and with a keen sense 
of the responsibility which it entails upon me. 

That responsibility I would be wholly inadequate to bear did I depend upon 
myself, but your gracious and sympathetic aid can make its yoke easy and its 
burden light. That aid I confidently invoke for the sake of the great cause 
under whose banner we have fought so many battles and which now demands 
our stanch devotion and loyal service. 

I regret that my name should have been brought in even the most cour- 
teous competition with that of my distinguished friend the great Senator from 
New York, but he will readily recognize the fact as I do, that there is no per- 
sonality in the preferment given me. He must know as we all do that it is 
solely due to the principle that this great majority of Democrats stands for and 
that I stand for with them; and that it is given, too, in the spirit of the instruc- 
tions received by these representatives of the people from the people whom 
all Democrats bow to as the original and purest fountain of all power. 

The birth of the Democratic party was coeval with the birth of the sov- 
ereignty of the people. It can never die until the Declaration of American 
Independence is forgotten, and that sovereignty is dethroned and extinguished. 
As the majority of the convention is not personal in its aims, neither is it 
sectional. It begins with the sunrise in Maine and spreads into a sunburst 
in Louisiana and Texas. It stretches in unbroken line across the continent 
from Virginia and Georgia to California. It sends forth its pioneers from 
Plymouth Rock and waves the palmetto in South Carolina. It has its strong- 
holds in Alabama and Mississippi and its outposts in Delaware and Minnesota, 
Florida and Oregon. It sticks like a tar heel in the old north State and 
writes i6 to i on the saddle bags of the Arkansas Traveler. It pours down 
its rivulets from the mountains of New Hampshire and West Virginia and 
makes a great lake in New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming and Idaho, Montana 
and Colorado. It stands guard around the National Capitol in the District of 
Columbia and taps at the door in far off Washington. It sweeps like a prairie 
fire over Iowa and Kansas and lights up the horizon in Nebraska. It mar- 
shals its massive battalions in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. 

Last but not least, when I see this grand array and think of the British 
gold standard that recently was unfurled over the ruins of Republican promises 
at St. Louis, I think, too. of the battle of New Orleans of which 'tis said 

There stood John Bull In martial pomp. 
But there was old Kentucky. 
Brethren of the East there is no North, South, East or West in this upris- 
ing of the people for American emancipation from the conspiracy of European 


kings led by Great Britain, which seeks to destroy one half of the money of 
the world, and to make American manufacturers, merchants, farmers and 
mechanics hewers of wood and drawers of water. 

But there is one thing golden that let me commend to you. It is the 
golden rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remem- 
ber the creed of Jefferson that absolute acquiescence in the will of the majority 
is the vital principle of the Republic, and Democrats as you have been, Demo- 
crats that you should be, acquiesce now in the will of this great majority of 
your fellow Democrats who only ask you to go with them as they have often 
gone with you. 

Do not forget that for thirty years we have supported the men that you 
named for President — Seymour, Greeley, Tilden, Hancock and Cleveland. Do 
not forget that we have submitted graciously to your compromise platforms 
and to your repeated pledges for bimetallism and have patiently borne repeated 
disappointments as to their fulfillment. 

Do not forget that even in the last national convention of 1892 you pro- 
claimed yourselves to be in favor of the use of both gold and silver as the 
standard money of the country and for the coinage of both gold and silver 
without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage, and that 
the only question left open was the ratio between the metals. 

Do not forget that just four years ago in that same convention the New 
York delegation stood here solid and immovable for a candidate committed 
to the free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the ratio of 16 to i; 
and that if we are for it still it is in some measure from your teachings. 

That we owe you much is readily acknowledged and gratefully acknowl- 
edged, but are not our debts mutual and not one sided as to each other? 

The Force bill, the McKinley bill and the Sherman law were the triplet 
progeny of the Republican party. The first was aimed not more at the South 
than at the great cities of the East, and chief among them at the great Demo- 
cratic city of New York with its munificent patronage. It got its death blow 
in the Senate where there was not a single Democratic vote from New York 
and all New England. If you helped to save the South it also helped to save 
you, and neither the East nor the South could have saved itself had not those 
great American Republican Senators from the West, Teller and Wolcott, Stew- 
art, Jones and Stanford, sunk partisanry in patriotism and come to the rescue 
of American institutions. No man can revive Force bills now in this glorious 
reconciled and reunited Republic. Our opponents themselves have abandoned 
them; there is none that can stand between the union of hearts and hands that 
Grant in his dying vision saw was coming on angels' wings to all the sons of 
our common country. 

When Chicago dressed with flowers the Southern graves she buried sec- 
tionalism under a mountain of fragrance; and when the Southern soldiers 
cheered but yesterday the wounded hero of the North in Richmond, she 
answered back, let us have peace — peace and union and liberty forever. 

As this majority of Democrats is not sectional neither is it for any privilege 
of class or for class legislation. The active business men of this country, its 
manufacturers, its merchants, its farmers, its sons of toil in counting room, 
factory, field and mine, know that a contraction of the currency sweeps away 


with the silent and relentless force of gravitation the annual profits of their 
enterprise and investment, and they know too that the gold standard means 
contraction and the organization of disaster. 

What hope is there for the country, what hope for Democracy unless the 
views of the majority here be adopted? 

Do not the people know that it was not silver legislation but the legisla- 
tion dictated by the advocates of the gold standard that has caused and now 
continues the financial depression? Do they not know that when their demands 
upon Democracy were complied with in 1893 and the Sherman law repealed 
without a substitute, that the very States of the East that demanded it turned 
against the Democrats who granted it and swept away their majorities in a 
torrent of ballots. Had the silver men had their way instead of the gold 
monometallists, what storms of abuse would now burst here upon their heads! 

But the people are now applying the power of memory and analysis to dis- 
cover the causes of their arrested prosperity and they need not go far to find 

They do not forget that when Democracy came to power in 1893 it inher- 
ited from its Republican predecessors a tax system and a currency system of 
which the McKinley law and the Sherman law were the culminating atrocities. 
It came amidst the panic which quickly followed their enactment — amongst 
decreased wages, strikes, lock-outs, riots and civic commotions, while the 
scenes of peaceful industry in Pennsylvania had been turned into military camps. 
Besides manifold oppressive features the McKinley law had thrown away 
$50,000,000 of revenue tax derived from sugar under the spectral plea of a free 
breakfast table, and had substituted bounties to sugar planters, thus decreasing 
revenue and increasing expenditure, and making the people pay at past for the 
alleged free breakfast. From the joint operations of the McKinley law and 
Sherman law an adverse balance of trade had been forced against us in 1893 — 
a surplus of $100,000,000 in the Treasury had been converted into a deficit of 
seventy million in 1894 before yet a Democratic statute had come into oper- 
ation, and engraved bonds prepared by a Republican Secretary to borrow 
money to support the Government were the ill omens of the pre-organized ruin 
which awaited incoming Democracy at a depleted Treasury. 

More significant still, the very authors of the ill starred and ill concocted 
Sherman makeshift were already at confessional and upon the stool of pene- 
tance, and were begging help from Democrats to put out the conflagration of 
disaster which they themselves had incited. 

So far as revenue to support the Government is concerned, the Democratic 
party, with but a slender majority in the Senate, was not long in providing it, 
and had not the Supreme Court of the United States reversed its settled doc- 
trines of a hundred years the income tax, incorporated in their tariff bill, 
would long since have supplied the deficit. 

Respecting finance, the Republican, Populist and Democratic parties, 
while differing upon other subjects, had alike declared for the restoration of our 
American system of bimetallism. 

By Republican and Democratic votes alike the Sherman law was swept 
from the statute books, the eagerness to rid the country of that Republican 
incubus being so great that no pause was made to provide iti subititute. But 


in the very act of its repeal it was solemnly declared to be the policy of the 
United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money 
and to* coin them into dollars of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value. 

The Republican party has now renounced the creed of its platforms and of 
our statutes. It has presented to the country the issue of higher taxes, more 
bonds and less money. 

We can only expect, should they succeed, new spasms of panic and a long 
protracted period of depression. Do not ask us then to join them on any of 
these propositions. Least of all, ask us not to join them upon the money ques- 
tion to fight a sham battle over the settled tariff, for the money question is the 
one paramount issue before the people, and it involves true Americanism more 
than any economic issue ever presented to the people at a presidential election. 

Existing gold standard? Whence come the idea that we are upon it. Not 
from the Democratic platform of 1892, which promised to hold us to the double 
one. Not from the last enactment of Congress on the subject in repealing the 
Sherman law, which pledges us to the continuance of the double one. Not from 
any statute of the United States in force. No, we are not upon any gold 
standard, but we have a disordered and miscellaneous currency, of nine varie- 
ties, three of metal and six of paper, the product for the most part of Republican 
legislation, rendered worse by treasury practices begun by Republican secre- 
taries and unfortunately copied by the Democratic administration. 

And consider these facts. The Federal, State and municipal taxes are 
assessed and paid by the standard of the whole mass of money in circulation. 
No authority has ever been conferred by Congress for the issue of bonds pay- 
able in gold, but distinctly refused. The specie resumption act of 1875 made the 
surplus revenue in the Treasury, not gold only, the redemption fund. Before 
the period for the operation of that act arrived, provision was made by the Bland- 
Allison act which has added to our circulation some three hundred and fifty 
millions of standard silver money or paper based upon it, and they are sustained 
at parity with gold by nothing on earth but the metal in them and their legal 
tender functions. We have no outstanding obligations payable in cold except 
the small sum of forty-four million of gold certificates, which, of course, should 
be so paid. All of our special obligations are payable in coin, which means silver 
or gold at government option, or in silver only. There is more silver or paper 
based upon it in circulation than there is in gold or paper based on gold. And 
that gold dollars are not the sole units of value is demonstrated by the fact 
that no gold dollar pieces whatever are now minted. 

If we should go upon the gold standard it is evident that we must 
change the existing bimetallic standard of payment of all public debts, taxes 
and appropriations, save those specifically payable in gold only. As we have 
twenty billions of public and private debt, it would take more than three- 
times all the gold in the country to pay one year's interest in that medium. 

We should be compelled hereafter to contract the currency by paying 
the five hundred millions of greenbacks and Sherman notes in gold, which 
would nearly exhaust the entire American stock in and out of the Treasury, 
and the same policy would require that the three hundred and forty-four 
millions of silver certificates should be paid in gold as foreshadowed by the 
present Director of the Mint in his recommendation. 


This means the increase of the public debt by five hundred millions of 
interest bearing gold bonds with the prospect of three hundred and forty -four 
millions to follow. 

The disastrous consequences of such a policy arc appalling to contem- 
plate, and the only alternative suggested is the free coinage of silver as 
well as gold and the complete restoration of our American system of bi- 

Bring us, we pray you, no more makeshifts and straddlers. Vex the 
country with no more prophecies of smooth things to come from the British- 
RepubHcan gold propaganda. 

The fact that European nations are going to the gold standard renders it 
all the more impracticable for us to do so, for the limited stock of gold would 
have longer division and a smaller share for each nation. 

Remember how previous predictions made when the unconditional repeal 
of the Sherman law cut oflF silver have been refuted. 

Instead of protecting the Treasury reserve as was proclaimed it would 
do, an unprecedented raid was promptly made upon it, and two hundred and 
sixty-two millions of borrowed gold have been insufficient to guarantee its 

Instead of causing foreign capital to flow to us, it has stimulated the 
flow of gold to Europe and the greenback notes and the Sherman notes. 
which are just as much payable in silver as in gold, have been used to dip 
the gold out of the Treasury and pour it into the strong boxes of the war 
lords of Europe. 

Instead of reviving business, this policy has further depressed it. In- 
stead of increasing wages this policy has further decreased them. Instead of 
multiplying opportunities for employment, this policy has multiplied idlers 
who cannot get it. Instead of increasing the prices of our produce, this 
policy has lowered them as is estimated about fifteen per cent, in three 
years. Instead of restoring confidence, this policy has banished confidence. 
Instead of bringing relief, it has brought years of misery, and for obvious 
reasons. It has contracted the currency four dollars a head for every man, 
woman and child in the United States since November i, 1893. And with 
this vast aggregate contraction the prices of land and manufactured 
goods and of all kinds of agricultural and mechanical produce have fallen, 
the public revenues have fallen, the wages of labor have fallen, and everything 
has fallen but taxes and debts, which have grown in burden, while on the 
other hand the means of payment have diminished in value. Meantime, com- 
mercial failures have progressed. The dividends of banks have shrunken. 

Three-fourths of our railway mileage have gone into the hands of the 
receivers and the country has received a shock from which it will take many 
years to recover. In this condition the new-fledged monometallists ask us 
to declare for a gold standard, and wait for relief upon some ghostly dream 
of international agreement. 

But the people well know how the conspiracy of European monarchs, led 
by Great Britain, has purposes of aggrandizement to subserve in the war upon 
American silver money, and stand in the way of such agreement. They are 
creditor nations, and seek to enhance the purchasing power of the thousands 


of millions of debt owed to them over the world, and much of which we 
owe. They draw upon us for much of their food supplies and raw ma- 
terials; for meat, wheat, corn, oil, cotton, wool, iron, lead and the like 
staples, and seek to get them for the least money. Besides this. Great 
Britain has large gold mines in South America, Australia and South Africa, 
and by closing our silver mines has greatly enhanced their value and their 
products. Recent British aggressions against Venezuela and the settlements 
in South Africa were moved by the desire to add to the possession of gold 
mines, and by monopolizing that metal as far as possible, to assert the com- 
mercial supremacy of the world. 

No nation can call itself independent that cannot establish a financial sys- 
tem of its own. We abhor the pretense that this, the foremost, richest and 
most powerful nation of the world, cannot coin its own money without 
suing for international agreement at the courts of European autocrats, who, 
having their primary interests to subserve, have for many years held out to 
us the idea before every presidental election that they would enter upon such 
an agreement and foiled every effort to obtain it' afterward. 

We have never had an international agreement about our money system 
with foreign nations, and none of the founders of the Republic ever dreamed 
that such an agreement was essential. We have had three international con- 
ferences with European powers in order to obtain it, and to wait longer 
upon them is to ignore the people's interest, to degrade our national dig- 
nity and to advertise our impotence and folly. 

The concession that the scientific thought of the world is for the 
double standard as the only solution of financial difficulty is a concession 
that wisdom far and wide cheers us on. The declaration that the English 
Commons, the Prussian Diet and French Minister of Finance have recently 
expressed themselves in its favor shows that it would succeed if not sup- 
pressed by the sinister influences of autocratic power. 

The concession that international agreement could restore the metals to 
equality and that such restoration would be a boon to mankind, is a con- 
cession that law regulates the value of money, and that the bimetallists arc 
right in their theories of a double standard. 

The framers of our Constitution knew this when they gave power to 
Congress to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign 
coins, and when they prohibited the States from making anything but gold 
and silver legal tender. Hamilton knew this when he framed the first mint 
act of 1792, and based the unit of our currency upon both metals for the 
double reason assigned by him that to exclude one would reduce it to a mere 
merchandise and involve the difference between a full and a scanty circulation. 
Jefferson knew this when he indorsed the work of Hamilton and Washing- 
ton when he approved it. Daniel Webster knew this when he declared that 
gold and silver were our legal standard and that neither Congress nor any 
State had the right to establish any other standard or displace this standard. 

General Grant knew this when he looked to silver as a resource of pay- 
ment and found to his astonishment that a Republican Congress had demone- 
tized it, and that he, as President, had unwittingly signed the bill. The peo- 
ple of the United States know this now and know also that "they who would 
be free themselves must strike the blow." 


We maintain that this great nation, with a natural base, as Gladstone 
said, of the greatest continuous empire ever established by man, with far 
more territory and more productive energy than Great Britain, France and 
Germany combined, without dependence upon Europe for anything that it 
produces and with European dependence upon us for much that we pro- 
duce, is fully capable of restoring its constitutional money system of gold and 
silver at equality with each other. And as our fathers in 1776 declared our 
national independence, so now has the party founded by Thomas Jefferson, 
the author of that declaration, met here to declare our financial independence 
of all other nations, and to invoke all true Americans to assert it by their votes 
and place their country where it of right belongs as the greatest, noblest 
and foremost nation that blesses the life of mankind on this globe. 

Hon. John H. Atwood, of Kansas, was made chairman of the 
Committee on Credentials, and discharged the duties of the position 
with great ability. The contests before the committee involved the 
entire Nebraska delegation, and a portion of the Michigan delegation. 
The committee reported with practical unanimity in favor of seating 
the delegation of which I was a member, in place of the delegation 
sent by the bolting organization of gold Democrats. The convention 
adopted, without division, the report upon the Nebraska contest and 
our delegates were escorted to seats in the convention. The commit- 
tee brought in a majority and a minority report on the Michigan con- 
test, the majority report being adopted by a vote which ran sub- 
stantially along the line of the Daniel-Hill vote. While the con- 
vention was waiting for the report of the Committee on Credentials, 
speeches were made by a number of prominent delegates, among 
them ex-Governor Hogg of Texas, Senator Blackburn of Kentucky, 
Governor Altgeld of IlHnois, and ex-Congressman George Fred Wil- 
liams of Massachusetts. Mr. Hogg's work has entitled him to a fore- 
most place among the Democrats of the nation, and the convention 
early showed its partiality for him. Mr. Altgeld was a prime factor in 
the fight waged by the silver Democrats for the capture of the party 
organization. As he was the recognized leader of his party in the great- 
est State of the West, his support was necessary in order to secure a 
victory for silver in the National Convention. He not only gave to the 
cause his great personal influence, but during the ante-convention 
campaign delivered several strong speeches, principal among which 
was his reply to Mr. Carlisle's Chicago speech. 

The Committee on Permanent Organization recommended the se- 
lection of Senator Stephen M. White, of California, as permanent chair- 
man of the convention, and the report was adopted without division. 


Mr. White has for many years been a most indefatigable, as well as 
able, champion of bimetallism. Upon taking the chair he said : 

Mr. WUi^t Speech. 

Gentlemen of the Convention: I will detain you with no extended speech. 
The Democratic party is here represented by delegates who have come from 
the Atlantic and Pacific shores. Every State has its full quota; every State, 
so far as I can bring about such a result, shall have full, equal, absolute and 
impartial treatment from this stand. Every State is entitled to such treatment; 
every question should be considered carefully and deliberately, and when the 
voice of this convention is crystallized into a judgment it should be binding 
upon all true Democratic members of this convention. 

We differ, perhaps, today upon certain vital issues, and we might express 
some feelings of bitterness in these discussions, but we submit to the voice and 
the candid judgment of our brethren, and upon that judgment we will certainly 
rely. Time passes as we stand here; it leaves many with unsatisfied ambition. 
It leaves numerous aspirations and hopes unrealized. Men now prominent 
will pass away — some to oblivion while they live — and others, because they have 
been summoned to another shore; but the Democratic party will not die, even 
when we all have ceased to live. 

When the differences which challenge consideration tonight have passed 
into history, when the asperities of this hour no longer obtain, the Democratic 
party, the guardian of the people's rights and the representative of the senti- 
ments of the United States in support of Constitutional right, will endure to 
bless mankind. 

My ambition or yours is of but little moment. Whether I succeed, or you, 
in impressing sentiments upon this convention is not of supreme importance. 
In this council chamber the Democratic party looks for an indication of its 
existence. The people seek here the righting of their wrongs, and the Consti- 
tution — the great charter of our liberties — here must find its best, its truest and 
its most loyal defenders. No sectionalism whatever; equal, impartial justice 
to all in this land; the triumph of the people's cause, as here exemplified and 
expressed, is the object for which we have assembled, and to carry out that 
object I will consecrate my best exertions. 




S THE adoption of the platform was the rock upon which the 
convention spHt, I give below the names of the Committee on 

Senator James K. Jones, of Arkansas, Irving W. Drew, New Hampshire. 

John H. Blankhead, Alabama. 
Stephen M. White, California. 
C. S. Thomas, Colorado. 
Lynde Harrison, Connecticut. 
George Gray, Delaware. 
R. A, Davis, Florida. 
Evan P. Howell, Georgia. 

B. N. Hillard, Idaho. 

N. E. Worthington, Illinois. 

James McCabe, Indiana. 

J. S. Murphy, Iowa. 

J. D. McCleverty, Kansas. 

P. W. Hardin, Kentucky. 

S. M. Robertson, Louisiana. 

C. V. Holman, Maine. 

John Prentiss Poe, Maryland. 
J. E. Russell, Massachusetts. 
George P. Hummer, Michigan. 
James E. O'Brien, Minnesota. 
J. Z. George, Mississippi. 
F. M. Cockrell, Missouri. 
E. D. Matts, Montana. 
W. J. Bryan, Nebraska. 
T. W. Healy, Nevada. 

Allen McDermott, New Jersey. 
David B. Hill, New York. 
E. J. Hale, North Carolina. 
W. N. Roach, North Dakota. 
Allen W. Thurman, Ohio. 
M. A. Miller, Oregon. 
R. E. Wright, Pennsylvania. 
David S. Baker, Rhode Island. 

B. R. Tillman, South Carolina. 
W. R. Steele, South Dakota. 
A. T. McNeil, Tennessee. 
John H. Reagan, Texas. 

J. L. Rawlins, Utah. 

P. J. Farrell, Vermont. 

Carter Glass, Virginia. 

R. C. McCroskey, Washington. 

W. M. Kincaid, West Virginia. 

William F. Vilas, Wisconsin. 

C. W. Brumel, Wyoming. 
Chas. D. Rogers, Alaska. 
W. H. Barnes, Arizona. 

R. E. Mattingley, District of Columbia. 
R. L. Owen, Indian Territory. 
A. A. Jones, New Mexico. 
M. L. Bixler, Oklahoma. 

From the first assembling of the Platform Committee it became 
evident that there could be no agreement. The differences between 
the delegates upon the money question were so radical and the con- 
victions so deep that compromise was impossible. A large majority 
of the delegates had come instructed for a platform declaring for 
free and unlimited coinage at i6 to i, while a minority of the delegates 
were instructed to oppose such a declaration. The majority prepared 
their money plank and the minority theirs, and the contest was trans- 



ferred to the convention. Senator Jones, the chairman of the commit- 
tee, presented the majority report, and the platform as read by him 
was adopted. As I shall set it forth in full in a subsequent chapter, 
I shall not quote from it here. The minority report was signed by 
Messrs. David B. Hill, William F. Vilas, George Gray, John Prentiss 
Poe, Irving W. Drew, C. V. Holman, P. J. Farrell, William R. Steele, 
Allen McDermott, Lynde Harrison, David S. Baker, Thomas A. E. 
Weadock, James E. O'Brien, John E. Russell, Robert E, Wright, and 
Charles D. Rogers. (Mr. Weadock, who signed the minority report, 
was replaced by Mr. Hummer, after the Michigan contest was decided. 
The latter supported the majority report.) 

The report and substitute recommended read as follows : 

To the Democratic National Convention: Sixteen delegates, constituting 
the minority of the Committee on Resolutions, find many declarations in the 
report of the majority to which they cannot give their assent. Some of these 
are wholly unnecessary. Some are ill considered and ambiguously phrased, 
while others arc extreme and revolutionary of the well recognized principles of 
the party. The minority content themselves with this general expression of 
their dissent, without going into a specific statement of these objectionable 
features of the report of the majority; but upon the financial question, which 
engages at this time the chief share of public attention, the views of the majority 
differ so fundamentally from what the minority regard as vital Democratic doc- 
trine as to demand a distinct statement of what they hold to as the only just 
and true expression of Democratic faith upon this paramount issue, as follows, 
which is offered as a substitute for the financial plank in the majority report: 

"We declare our belief that the experiment on the part of the United States 
alone of free silver coinage and a change of the existing standard of value 
independently of the action of other great nations, would not only imperil our 
finances, but would retard or entirely prevent the establishment of international 
bimetallism, to which the efforts of the Government should be steadily directed. 
It would place this country at once upon a silver basis, impair contracts, dis- 
turb business, diminish the purchasing power of the wages of labor, and inflict 
irreparable evils upon our nation's commerce and industry. 

"Until international co-operation among leading nations for the coinage of 
silver can be secured we favor the rigid maintenance of the existing gold stand- 
ard as essential to the preservation of our national credit, the redemption of our 
public pledges, and the keeping inviolate of our country's honor. We insist 
that all our paper and silver currency shall be kept absolutely at a parity with 
gold. The Democratic party is the party of hard money and is opposed to 
legal tender paper money as a part of our permanent financial system, and we 
therefore favor the gradual retirement and cancellation of all United States 
notes and Treasury notes, under such legislative provisions as will prevent 
undue contraction. We demand that the national credit shall be resolutely 
maintained at all times and under all circumstances." 

The minority also feel that the report of the majority is defective in failing 


to make any recognition of the honesty, economy, courage and fidelity of the 
present Democratic administration. And they therefore offer the following 
declaration as an amendment to the majority report: 

"We commend the honesty, economy, courage and fidelity of the present 
Democratic National Administration." 

The debate was opened by Senator Tillman, who supported the 
platform reported by the majority; he was followed by Senator Jones. 
Senator Hill, Senator Vilas and ex-Governor Russell of Massachusetts 
supported the substitute offered by the minority. The debate was 
closed by myself. The speech is given below : 

Spcecli Gmcluding Debate on the Chicago Platform* 
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: I would be presumptu- 
ous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom 
you have listened if this were a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a con- 
test between persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the 
armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to 
speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty — the cause of 

When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the 
table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration, and also 
the resolution offered in condemnation of the administration. We object to 
bringing this question down to the level of persons. The individual is but an 
atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles arc eternal; and this has been 
a contest over a principle. 

Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such 
a contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before in the 
history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue 
has been, by the voters of a great party. On the fourth of March, 1895, a few 
Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the 
Democrats of the nation, asserting that the money question was the paramount 
issue of the hour; declaring that a majority of the Democratic party had the 
right to control the action of the party on this paramount issue; and con- 
cluding with the request that the believers in the free coinage of silver in the 
Democratic party should organize, take charge of, and control the policy of 
the Democratic party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was 
perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and courageously pro- 
claiming their belief, and declaring that, if successful, they would crystallize into 
a platform the declaration which they had made. Then began the conflict. 
With a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed 
Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory 
until they are now assembled, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the 
judgment already rendered by the plain people of this country. In this contest 
brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son. The warmest ties 
of love, acquaintance and association have been disregarded; old leaders have 
been cast aside when they have refused to give expression to the sentiments of 
those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction 


to this cause of truth. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assem- 
bled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon 
representatives of the people. 

We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have been glad 
to compliment the gentleman from New York (Senator Hill), but we know 
that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a 
position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it was 
not a question of persons; it was a question of principle, and it is not with 
gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those 
who are now arrayed on the other side. 

The gentleman who preceded me (ex-Governor Russell) spoke of the State 
of Massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all this convention 
entertains the least hostility to the people of the State of Massachusetts, but 
we stand here representing people who are the equals, before the law, of the 
greatest citizens in the State of Massachusetts. When you (turning to the 
gold delegates) come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your 
business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by 
your course. 

W^e say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too 
limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a 
business man as his employer: the attorney in a country town is as much a 
business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant 
at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New 
York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day — who begins 
in the spring and toils all summer — and who by the application of brain and 
muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a busi- 
ness man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price 
of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb 
two thousand feet upon the cliflfs, and bring forth from their hiding places 
the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much busi- 
ness men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money 
of the world. We come to speak for this broader class of business men. 

Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the 
Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of 
the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose — the pioneers 
away out there (pointing to the West), who rear their children near to Nature's 
heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds — out there 
where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young, 
churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes 
of their dead — these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our 
party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak. We do 
not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting 
in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, 
and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties 
have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our 
calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. 
We defy them. 

The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a Robespierre. My 

j/f3 i2t^Xi^T-fc-«_-4^'»<V^^ 


friends, in this land of the free you need not fear that a tyrant will spring up 
from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand, as 
Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized wealth. 

They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to 
them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which 
Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied 
to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to 
meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be 
brought in here; that it is a new idea. They criticise us for our criticism of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have not criticised; we 
have simply called attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms, 
read the dissenting opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They 
say that we passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income tax law 
was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not unconstitutional when 
it went before the Supreme Court for the first time; it did not become uncon- 
stitutional until one of the judges changed his mind, and we cannot be ex- 
pected to know when a judge will change his mind. The income tax is just. 
It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of 
the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not 
willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, 
I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours. 
They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true. 
If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find he said that, in 
searching history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson; that was 
Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of Cataline and saved Rome. Benton 
said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us when he destroyed 
the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our platform that we believe 
that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. We believe 
it. We believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be dele- 
gated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals 
the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. JeflFerson, who was once re- 
garded as good Democratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion from 
the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who 
are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function 
of the bank, and that the Government ought to go out of the banking business. 
I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that 
the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go 
out of the governing business. 

They complain about the plank which declares against life tenure in 
office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. 
What we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is being built up in 
Washington, and which excludes from participation in official benefits the 
humbler members of society. 

Let me call your attention to two or three important things. The gentle- 
man from New York says that he will propose an amendment to the plat- 
form providing that the proposed change in our monetary system shall not 
aflfect contracts already made. Let me remind you that there is no intention 
of affecting those contracts which according to present laws are made payable 


in gold; but if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system 
without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, 
I desire to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find justification for not 
protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed, if he now insists that 
we must protect the creditors. 

He says he will also propose an amendment which will provide for the sus- 
pension of free coinage if we fail to maintain the parity within a year. We 
reply that when we advocate a policy which we believe will be successful, we 
are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by suggesting what 
we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he would apply his logic to us, why he does 
not apply it to himself. He says he wants this country to try to secure an in- 
ternational agreement Why does he not tell us what he is going to do if 
he fails to secure an international agreement? There is more reason for him 
to do that than there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain the 
parity. Our opponents have tried for twenty years to secure an international 
agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who do not want it 
at all. 

And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they ask 
us why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon 
the tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain its thousands, 
the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we do 
not embody in our platform all the things that we believe in, we reply that 
when we have restored the money of the Constitution all other necessary 
reforms will be possible; but that until this is done there is no other reform 
that can be accomplished. 

Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the 
country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who 
believe in the gold standard would frame our platform and nominate our can- 
didates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could 
elect a president. And they had good reason for their doubt, because there 
is scarcely a State here today asking for the gold standard which is not in the 
absolute control of the Republican party. But note the change. Mr. McKinley 
was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform which declared for the main- 
tenance of the gold standard until it can be changed into bimetallism by inter- 
national agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the 
Republicans, and three months ago everybody in the Republican party prophe- 
sied his election. How is today? Why, the man who was once pleased to think 
that he looked like Napoleon — ^that man shudders today when he remembers 
that he was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Not only 
that, but as he listens he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the sound 
of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena. 

Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the reason for the change evident 
to any one who will look at the matter? No private character, however pure, 
no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath 
of an indignant people a man who will declare that he is in favor of fastening 
the gold standard upon this country, or who is willing to surrender the right 
of self-government and place the legislative control of our affairs in the hands of 
foreign potentates and powers. 

■ ■■T rn 


We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the par« 
amount issue of this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the 
enemy will dare to challenge battle. If they tell us that the gold standard is 
a good thing, we shall point to their platform and tell them that their platform 
pledges the party to get rid of the gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If 
the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? I call your atten- 
tion to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today 
and who tell us that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism-^ 
thereby declaring that the gold standard is wrong and that the principle of 
bimetallism is better — these very people four months ago were open and avowed 
advocates of the gold standard, and were then telling us that we could not 
legislate two metals together, even with the aid of all the world. If the gold 
standard is a good thing, we ought to declare in favor of its retention and 
not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing why should 
we wait until other nations are willing to help us to let go? Here is the 
line of battle, and we care not upon which issue they force the fight; we are 
prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the 
gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most 
enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard 
and that both the great parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold 
standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have 
it? If they come to meet us on that issue we can present the history of our 
nation. More than that; we can tell them that they will search the pages of 
history in vain to find a single instance wher« the common people of any land 
have ever declared themselves in favor of the gold standard. They can find 
where the holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but 
not where the masses have. 

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the idle holders 
of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay 
the taxes of the country;" and, my friends, the question we are to decide is: 
Upon which side will the Democratic party fight; upon the side of "the idle 
holders of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses?" That is 
the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered 
by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown 
by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been 
the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas* of government. 
There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do 
prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic 
idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, 
their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon 

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold 
standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. 
Bum down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again 
as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets 
of every city in the country. 

My friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own 
people on every question, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other 


nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry every State in the Union. 
I shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair State of Massachusetts 
nor the inhabitants of the State of New York by saying that, when 
they are confronted with the proposition, they will declare that this nation 
is not able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. 
Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare 
their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, 
when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent 
than our forefathers? No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our 
people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they 
say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, 
we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will 
restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United 
States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold 
standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind 
us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the 
commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will 
answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not 
press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify 
mankind upon a cross of gold. 

In view of the wide publication of this speech, I may be pardoned 
for making some reference to it. While a member of the Committee on 
Resolutions, I was prevented "from attending the first sessions of the 
committee owing to our contest, and was not a member of the sub- 
committee which drafted the platform. As soon as our contest was 
settled, I met with the committee and took part in the final discus- 
sion and adoption of the platform. Just before the platform was re- 
ported to the convention, Senator Jones sent for me and asked me to 
take charge of the debate. In dividing the time I was to have twenty 
minutes to close, but as the minority used ten minutes more than 
the time originally allotted, my time was extended ten minutes. The 
concluding sentence of my speech was criticised both favorably and 
unfavorably. I had used the idea in substantially the same form in 
a speech in Congress, but did not recall the fact when I used it in 
the convention. A portion of the speech was extemporaneous, and 
its arrangement entirely so, but parts of it had been prepared for 
another occasion. Next to the conclusion, the part most quoted was 
the definition of the term, "business men." Since I became inter- 
ested in the discussion of monetary questions, I have often had oc- 
casion to note and comment upon the narrowness of some of the 
terms used, and nowhere is this narrowness more noticeable than 
in the attempt to ignore the most important business men of the 
countrv, the real creators of wealth, 



On the 

motion to 



the vote by 

States was as follows : 


Total Vote. 



Alabama . . . . 






• • 




• • 




• • 





• • 



















.... 80 























5 30 



Michigan . . . . 


• a 


Minnesota* . . 




Mississippi.. . 















New Hampsh 

ire. . 8 


a • 

New Jersey . . 



• • 

substitute oflFered by the minority, 


Total Vote. Ayes. Nays. 

New York 72 

North Carolina 22 

North Dakota 6 

Ohio 46 

Oregon 8 

Pennsylvania 64 

Rhode Island 8 

South Carolina. . . 18 

South Dakota 8 

Tennessee 24 

Texas 30 

Utah 6 

Vermont 8 

Virginia 24 

Washington 8 

West Virginia 12 

Wisconsin 24 

Wyoming 6 


Alaska 6 

Arizona 6 

Dist. of Columbia.. 6 

New Mexico 6 

Oklahoma 6 

Indian Territory.. 6 




• • 








• • 




• • 




• • 



Totals 930 



H)ne absent from Minnesota. 

After the defeat of the substitute, the roll was called upon the 
following amendment offered by Senator Hill: 

We commend the honesty, economy, courage and fidelity of the present 
Democratic National Administration. 

Upon this, the vote by States was as follows: 


Total Not 

Vote. Ayes. Nays. Vot'g 



• ■ 




ft • 







.. 8 

• • 





• 9 


.. 6 




.. 8 





• • 



.. 6 

• • 




• • 







Indiana , 



Kentucky 26 

Louisiana 16 

Maine 12 

Maryland 16 

Massachusetts .... 30 

Michigan 28 

Minnesota 18 

Ayee. Nays. Vot'g 







States. Vote. 

Mississippi 18 

Missouri 34 

Montana 6 

Nebraska 16 

Nevada 6 

New Hampshire. 8 

New Jersey 20 

New York 72 

North Carolina. . .22 

North Dakota 6 

Ohio 46 

Oregon 8 

Pennsylvania 64 

Rhode Island 8 

South Carolina. . . 18 

South Dakota 8 

Tennessee 24 


Ayo8. Nays. Yot'g 









.. 22 






• • 





Texas 80 

Utah 6 

Vermont 8 

Virginia 24 

Washington 8 

West Virginia ...12 

Wisconsin 24 

Wyoming 6 


Alaska 6 

Arizona 6 

Dist. of Columbia. 6 

New Mexico 6 

Oklahoma 6 

Indian Territory.. 6 

Tkytal Not 

Vote. Ayes. Nays. Yot'ff 









• • 




ToUls 930 357 564 


Mr. Hill then offered the following amendments: 

But it should be carefully provided by law at the same time that any change 
in the monetary standard should not apply to existing contracts. 

Our advocacy of the independent free coinage of silver being based on belief 
that such coinage will effect and maintain a parity between gold and silver 
at the ratio of i6 to i» we declare as a pledge of our sincerity that, if such free 
coinage shall fail to effect such parity within one year from its enactment by 
law, such coinage shall thereupon be suspended. 

Both amendments were defeated without roll call. Upon the 
motion to adopt the platform, the vote by states was as follows: 

Total Vote. Ayes. Nays, 
22 22 



Arkansas 16 16 

California 18 18 

Colorado 8 8 

Connecticut 12 

Delaware 6 1 

Florida 8 5 

Georgia 26 26 

Idaho 6 6 

Illinois 48 48 

Indiana 30 30 

Iowa 26 26 

Kansas 20 20 

Kentucky ..26 26 

Louisiana 16 16 

Maine 12 2 

Maryland 16 4 

Massachusetts 30 3 


Total Vote. Ayee. Nays. 




Michigan 28 

Minnesota* 18 

Mississippi 18 

Missouri 34 

Montana 6 

Nebraska .16 

Nevada 6 

New Hampshire 8 

New Jersey 20 

New York 72 

North Carolina 22 

North Dakota 6 

Ohio 46 

Oregon 8 

Pennsylvania 64 

Rhode Island 8 

South Carolina 18 













•One not Totin^. 



SUtw. Total Vote. Aycw. Nays. 

South Dakota 8 8 

Tennessee 24 24 

Texas 30 30 

Utah 6 6.. 

Vermont 8 . . 8 

Virginia 24 24 

Washington 8 5 3 

West Virginia 12 12 

Wisconsin 24 .. 24 

Wyoming 6 6 


Total Vote. Ayw. Naya. 

Alaska 6 

Arizona 6 6 

Dist. of Columbia 6 6 

New Mexico 6 6 

Oklahoma 6 6 

Indian Territory 6 6 

Totals 990 628 801 



THE several candidates were placed in nomination by their re- 
spective States and the speeches were of a high order. The 
name of Hon. Richard Parks Bland, of Missouri, was pre- 
sented by Senator Vest, of that State, and the nomination was seconded 
by Hon. David Overmyer, of Kansas, Hon. J. R. Williams, of Illinois, 
Hon. Paul Jones, of Arkansas, Hon. J. W. Bailey, of Texas, and Hon. 
J. L. Rawlins, of Utah. 

Senator Turpie, of Indiana, placed before the convention the name 
of Governor Claude Matthews, of that State, and his nomination was 
seconded by Hon. Oscar Tripet, of California. 

Ex-Congressman Fred White, of Iowa, presented the claims of 
ex-Governor Horace Boies, of that State, and the nomination was 
seconded by Hon. T. A. Smith, of Minnesota. 

The name of Senator J. C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, was pre- 
sented by Hon. John S. Rhea, of that State, and speeches were made 
by Hon. W. W. Foote, of California, Hon. James Malone, of Wiscon- 
sin, and Hon. J. W. St. Clair, of Virginia, in support of the nomination. 

Col. A. W. Patrick, of Ohio, presented the name of Hon. John R. 
McLean, of that State, and the nomination was seconded by Hon. 
Robert E. Mattingly, of the District of Columbia. 

Hon. W. W. Foote of California stated that California desired 
to nominate Senator Stephen H. White of that State, but that Mr. 
White declined to allow his name to be presented. 

Hon. W. A. Jones of \'irginia announced that the Democrats of 
his State in convention assembled had requested the delegation to pre- 
sent the name of Hon. John W. Daniel, but that in compliance with 
his request, the delegation refrained from doing so. 

Hon. John W. Corcoran, of Massachusetts, stated that the Demo- 
crats of his State had, by unanimous vote, instructed the delegation 
to support ex-Governor William E. Russell, but that because of the 
platform adopted, he had asked that his name be not presented. Hon. 
William F. Harritv, of Pennsvlvania, stated that in obedience to the 
instructions of the Democratic Convention of that State, the Pennsvl- 
vania delegation presented the name of Hon. Robert E. Pattison. 




Hon. M. A. Miller, of Oregon, on behalf of his delegation, presented 
the name of Hon. Sylvester Pennoyer of that State. 

I left the convention hall at the close of the afternoon session and 
did not return. It was arranged that the delegation from Nebraska 
should make no formal nomination. I remained in my room at the 
hotel and there received the bulletins from the convention hall. Know- 
ing the intentions of the Nebraska delegation, and not knowing that 
any speeches were to be made by others, I was surprised when the bul- 
letins announced that Hon. Henry T. Lewis of Georgia, had been 
recognized to present my name. He said : 

Mr* Lewis' Speech* 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: I do not intend to make 
a speech, but simply, in behalf of the delegation on this floor from the State of 
Georgia, to place in nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency 
of the United States a distinguished citizen, whose very name is an earnest of 
success, whose political record will insure Democratic victory, and whose life 
and character are loved and honored by the American people. 

Should public office be bestowed as a reward for public service? Then no 
man more than he merits this reward. Is public oflfice a public trust? Then 
in no other hands can be more safely lodged this greatest trust in the gift of a 
great people. Was public office created for the welfare of the people and the 
prosperity of the country? Then under his leadership in the coming campaign 
may we confidently hope to achieve these great ends in human government. 
In the political storms that have hitherto swept over this country he has stood 
on the field of battle among the leaders of the Democratic hosts like Saul 
among the Israelites, head and shoulders above all the rest. As Mr. Prentiss 
said of the immortal Clay, so we can truthfully say of him, that "His civic 
laurels will not yield in splendor to the brightest chaplet that ever bloomed 
upon a warrior's brow." 

He needs no speech to introduce him to this convention. He needs no 
encomium to commend him to the people of the United States. Honor him, 
fellow Democrats, and you will honor yourselves. Nominate him and you 
will reflect credit upon the party you represent. Place in his hands the Demo- 
cratic standard and you will have a leader worthy of your cause, and will win 
for yourselves the plaudits of your constituents and the blessings of posterity. 
I refer, fellow citizens, to the Honorable William J. Bryan, of the State of 

The nomination was seconded by Hon. Theo. F. Kluttz or North 


Carolina, Hon. George Fred Williams of Massachusetts, Hon. Thomas 
J. Keman of Louisiana, and Hon. E. J. Dockery of Wisconsin. 

When Nebraska was called, Hon. C. J. Smyth, chairman of the 
delegation, announced that the State passed for the present, but that at 
the proper time the vote would be cast for me. 

The nomination was made upon the fifth ballot on Friday, the loth. 
The vote of the States upon the several ballots was as follows: 

























a. : 






1 i 





2 2 

.. 9.. 







1 2 

1 1 . 

idahS.*:::::::::;:::::::::::;:' ■ 









3.. s 

2 1 1 




. Jl 

















Alaska. ..■.■":::'.■::.'.':::;:■.:::;:: 




7 37 


9782 6 

8 217 1 

8 1 























































































South Dakota 











































































New York 























































































New Jersey 




















































































AiuS"^::::;::.;/. :.",;::;:::::::;::::: 








^■ Iig ^ r - . . ■ 


During the fifth ballot Hon. Ollie James, of Kentucky, withdrew 
the name of Mr. Blackburn; Hon. John R. McLean announced the 
withdrawal of his name; Governor Stone, of Missouri, withdrew the 
name of Mr. Bland; Hon. A. Van Wagenen, of Iowa, withdrew the 
name of Mr. Boies, and Senator Turpie withdrew the name of Gov- 
ernor Matthews, 

On motion of Senator Turpie the nomination was made unanimous. 

Some of the newspapers have commented upon the fact that the 
nomination went to one whose seat in the convention was contested. 
As a matter of fact, while the right of our delegation to seats in the 
convention was contested, there was never any reason for the contest. 
Our title to seats was as unquestionable as that of any delegation in the 
convention. I have, in previous chapters, described the contest as it 
developed in Nebraska. The bolting delegation, which was seated 
by the National Committee, was sent by an organization which found 
its origin in a convention precisely like the convention which assem- 
bled at Indianapolis in September, 1896. 

Our delegation established headquarters at the Clifton House, just 
across the street from the Palmer House, where something like a 
hundred Nebraska Democrats gathered daily, ready at all times to 
defend the principles set forth in the Chicago platform. 

I may add for the encouragement of those who still believe that 
money is not necessary to secure a Presidential nomination that my 
entire expenses while in attendance upon the convention were less than 

It gives me pleasure to testify to the fact that those who were promi- 
nent in the contest for the Presidential nomination gave loyal and en- 
thusiastic support to the ticket. Mr. Bland, whose vote was next to 
my own, devoted himself to the cause with voice and pen. Mr. Black- 
burn visited all parts of the Union and responded to every call. Mr. 
Boies did effective work upon the stump during the entire campaign. 
Mr. McLean, as a member of the Executive Committee of the National 
Committee, was an invaluable counselor and gave most efficient aid. 
Mr. Matthews was actively at work from the adjournment of the con- 
vention to the closing of the polls. Mr. Pattison, while not in accord 
with some parts of the platform, still supported the ticket. Mr. Tillman, 
who, while his name was not placed in nomination, received the vote of 
his State on the first ballot, delivered a large number of speeches in sup- 
port of the platform and ticket. Vice-President Stevenson, who, 
though not formally a candidate, received several votes in the conven- 



tion, promptly placed himself at the disposal of the National Committee 
and spoke in several States. Mr. Sibley, who, notwithstanding his 
refusal to be a candidate, received a large vote for the Vice-Presidency, 
was a zealous supporter and untiring in his efforts in behalf of the 



WHEN the convention met on Saturday morning it proceeded 
to the nomination of a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. 
Hon. T. J. O'Sullivan, of Massachusetts, presented the 
name of ex-Congressman George Fred Williams. 

Hon. W. B. Marston, of Louisiana, brought forward the name of 
Hon. John R. McLean, of Ohio. The nomination was seconded by 
Hon. Ulric Sloan, of Ohio. 

Hon. J. H. Currie, of North Carolina, presented the name of Judge 
Walter Clark, of that State. 

Hon. Thomas Maloney. of Washington, presented the name of 
Hon. James Hamilton Lewis, of that State. 

Hon. George W. Fithian, of Illinois, was placed in nomination by 
Hon. Tom Johnson, of Ohio. 

Hon. M. A. Miller, of Oregon, presented the name of ex-Gov- 
ernor Sylvester Pennoyer, of that State. 

Hon. Arthur Sewall, of Maine, was placed in nomination by Hon. 
William R. Burk, of California. The nominating speech was as fol- 
lows : 

Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Convention: What 
I say to you at this juncture I know in one respect will commend itself 
to you. I shall be brief. Gentlemen, taking into account the great mission 
which has called us into convention, it seems to me that we should consider 
matters far beyond the reach of this great body. We should consider that there 
are people whom we represent who have to vote on this great question, and 
those people represent forty-seven of the great Northern States, starting from 
Maine, reaching to the Pacific, touching the Atlantic coast on the south and 
extending far beyond into the State of Texas. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as 
I have said, geographical consideration should prompt us, as well as the ques- 
tion of ability. 

It would not become me to say aught of any gentleman whose name has 
been brought before you in this connection. I would not say aught of the 
gentleman from North Carolina or from Oregon or from any of the gfreat 
Western States, but it seems to me that when we come to make up the remain- 
ing portion of this ticket we should consider those States beyond the Blue 
Ridge mountains, and in that connection I present a candidate who represents 

13 221 


every element which is presented to you in your platform and in your distin- 
guished candidate for the President, William J. Bryan. I take pleasure in pre- 
senting for your careful consideration the name of Arthur Sewall, of Maine. 
Mr. President, it may be well said of him, in connection with the great questions 
involved in this matter and the interests which are before you, that he will 
fulfill the pledges which have been made by your platform at this time. You 
will make no mistake in nominating him. 

The nomination was seconded by Hon. C. S. Thomas, of Colorado, 
and Hon. John Scott, of Maine. 

Hon. Joseph C. Sibley, of Pennsylvania, was placed in nomination 
by Hon. J. D. Shewalter, of Missouri. The nomination was seconded 
by Hon. Free P. Morris, of Illinois, and by Hon. George W. Fithian 
of the same State, who at the same time announced that he himself was 
not a candidate. 

Governor C. A. Culbertson, of Texas, on behalf of the delegates 
from his State, placed before the convention the name of Hon. Richard 
P. Bland, of Missouri. 

Judge O. W. Powers, of Utah, presented the name of Senator J. 
W. Daniels, of Virginia. When Mr. Powers had finished, Hon. W. 
A. Jones, of Virginia, announced that while the delegates from that 
State appreciated the beautiful tribute which had been paid to Senator 
Daniel, he would not permit the use of his name in connection with 
that office. 

Mr. Sewall was nominated on the fifth ballot. I give the vote on 
the several ballots: 











: i 

1 c 









i 5 



















































New York 


























Alaska.:.:::: :":::: 

Ariiona . 











Indian Territory 










2 I 












































New York 








Rhode Island 






West VitBinia 
































































■ "e 














































. 4 
















v^tvEia ■.■.■■.■:::::;;:::;::::::;;:::: 




Affl'"^".'" ■■.'.'. ■.'.■.■.::.■::;:■..■::::::::: 
































New York 



















Before the first ballot was announced, the name of Mr. Pennoyer 
was withdrawn and the vote of the State changed from Pennoyer to 
SiBley. When the Nebraska delegation was reached, Hon. C. J. Smyth, 
the chairman of the delegation, said: 

Nebraska, grateful for the very high honor that has been conferred, is pre- 
pared to accept the result of the combined wisdom of this convention and is not 
willing to take any part in this contest. 

The delegation did not vote upon any of the ballots until, at the 
conclusion of the fifth ballot, it was evident that Mr. Sewall had been 
nominated. Then the delegation announced sixteen votes for the 
nominee. The refusal to vote was in accordance with my expressed 
wish. As I did not myself take any part in the nomination of the 
candidate for Vice-President I thought it better that the delegation 
from Nebraska should also decline to participate, lest the vote of the 
delegation might be considered an expression of my preference. 

During the progress of the second ballot Governor Stone an- 
nounced that the Missouri delegation had no authority to present the 
name of Mr. Bland, and that therefore Missouri divided her vote among 
other candidates. Before the result of the second ballot was an- 
nounced, Hon. Amos Cummings read the following dispatch: 

Meadville, Pa., July nth. 
Hon. Amos Cummings: Please do not permit my name to be presented. 
I so instructed my friends yesterday. Joseph C. Sibley. 

At the conclusion of the third ballot Governor Stone obtained 
recognition and said: 

I desire, on behalf of Missouri, and as the friend of Mr. Bland, to express 
to you our grateful appreciation of your kindness. I am now in receipt of a 
telegram from Mr. Bland, in which he says substantially that he would deem 
it unwise and impolitic to nominate both candidates from the west side of the 
Mississippi River. He directs me to say that the nomination of Mr. Bryan has 
his warm and hearty approval, and he thinks the nomination for the Vice- 
Presidency should be made with one object alone in view, and that is of 
strengthening the ticket. Accordingly, he directs me to say that he wishes his 
name withdrawn from the consideration of this convention for that purpose. 

During the progress of the fourth ballot, Mr. Long, of Ohio, ob- 
tained the floor and said: 

Two telegrams have been received by the Ohio delegation from Mr. 
McLean. They state substantially what I stated here in the opening — that he 
is not a candidate, but that you may have the exact words, I read his telegram. 
He speaks for himself and for the Ohio delegation: "Any vote cast for me for 
Vice-President is against my expressed wish and without my authority. Please 
so announce to the convention." That is Mr. McLean's, not the Ohio delega- 
tion's, statement. 

^ l-PU - 


The nomination of Mr. Sewall was made unanimous, and after reso- 
lutions complimenting Temporary Chairman Daniel, Permanent Chair- 
man White and Acting Chairman Richardson, together with Chairman 
Harrity, of the National Committee, the convention adjourned sine die. 

While I had known of Mr. Sewall's advocacy of free sHver as a 
member of the National Committee, I was not personally acquainted 
with him until the convention met. My first meeting with him oc- 
curred just after I had concluded my speech in favor of the adoption 
of the platform reported by the majority of the committee. He came 
to announce himself in favor of my nomination for the Presidency, and 
to suggest the advisability of proceeding at once to the nomination. 
A similar suggestion was made by others, but I asked our delegation 
to take no part in the matter and leave the convention to adjourn or 
proceed, according to the decision of the other delegations. 

After his nomination he called upon me at the hotel, and we 
exchanged congratulations. As I knew him better, acquaintance 
ripened into friendship and I learned to esteem him for his many 
sterling qualities. 

He stood squarely upon the Chicago platform, and was ready to 
defend it at all times. Although in possession of a large income, he 
favored an income tax; although connected with a national bank, he 
was opposed to the law which allowed national banks to issue cur- 
rency. The fact that he advocated free coinage and the income tax 
and opposed banks of issue, notwithstanding the influences which 
surrounded him, demonstrated both the depth of his convictions and 
his possession of moral courage. 

I give below a biographical sketch : 

Biographical Sketch of Hon* Arthur SewalL 
Arthur Sewall, third son of William Dunning and Rachel Trufant 
Sewall, was born in Bath, Maine, Thanksgiving Day, 1835. His 
father was a prominent merchant and ship builder of Bath, and Sen- 
ator in the Legislature of his State. His grandfather was Joseph 
Sewall, of Bath. His great-grandfather was Drummer Sewall, who 
settled at Bath, 1762, was an officer of the French and Indian war, 
and of the Continental army, was muster master for the Province of 
Maine to the close of the Revolution, and afterwards a member of 
the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, called to ratify the Federal 
Constitution, and of the different conventions called to secure the 
separation of Maine from Massachusetts. He was fifth in descent 
from Henry Sewall, Mayor of Coventry, England, whose grandson 
piarried Jane Dummcr. and emigrated to Newbury, Mass., 1634. 


Arthur Sewall was educated in the common schools of Bath. At 
an early age he went from Bath to Prince Edward's Island, trading 
and securing ship timber, which he sent to the ship yards of the 
Kennebec. Returning when less than twenty years of age, he entered 
his father's ship yard, and in 1854, formed a partnership with his 
senior brother, Edward, under the name of E. & A. Sewall, taking 
the business of the old firm. 

In January, 1855, the two brothers launched their first ship, the 
"Holyhead," of over 1,000 tons burden, a large ship in those days, 
followed the same year by another. In the twenty-four years of 
their partnership they built thirty-nine vessels of the largest tonnage 
for their class and time. 

In 1879, upon the death of his elder brother, the firm name was 
changed to Arthur Sewall & Co., the partners of which are Mr. Sewall 
and his nephew, Samuel Sewall, and his second son, William D. 
Sewall. Under the present firm, the activity in ship building con- 
tinued, and in 1890 they launched the ship "Rappahannock," of over 
3,000 tons burden, then the largest wooden ship in the world, as had 
been a former "Rappahannock" launched by William D. Sewall, half 
a century before. 

Then followed the "Shenandoah," Susquehanna," and the "Roa- 
noke," the latter being at the time of her launch, as she is now, the 
largest wooden ship afloat. In 1893 the yard was fitted with a steel 
plant, and from it was launched the 'next year the "Dirigo," the first 
steel sailing ship built in America. 

Through the present era of decadence of our merchant marine, Mr. 
Sewall has never lost faith that ultimately the United States would 
regain its power and pre-eminence on the seas. 

Aside from his work as a ship builder, he has had part in opening 
up the resources of his native State. His father had been a pioneer in 
the railroad development of Maine, and he succeeded him as director 
of Maine's chief railway system, of which later he was for nine years 
the president. He also has been connected with railroad and other 
enterprises in the South and West and in Mexico. He has been 
for twenty-six years president of the Bath National Bank. 

He married in 1859 Miss Emma Duncan Crooker, and has two 
sons, Harold Marsh and William Dunning Sewall, and f€>ur grand- 
children. His religious faith is that of the New (Swedenborgian) 

In politics he has always been a Democrat, and as a member of 

_• - 



the minority party of his city and State has held but few elective 
offices. From his own party, however, he has received frequent proofs 
of confidence. 

He was delegate to the National Democratic Convention at Balti- 
more, which nominated Greeley in 1872, and again to that at Cincin- 
nati, which nominated Hancock in 1880. He was also a delegate 
at large to the convention which nominated Cleveland in 1884. In 
1888 he was present at the Democratic Convention at St. Louis, and 
was then elected a member of the Democratic National Committee, 
and was a member of the executive committee of that organization 
for the campaign of that year. 

He attended the Chicago Convention of 1892, and was again 
elected to the National Committee and made a member of the Execu- 
tive Committee. 

In 1893 he was the nominee and unanimous choice of his party for 
United States Senator, against Eugene Hale, Republican. 

. His views on public questions have always been positive and un- 
concealed. He believes in an American policy, commercial, foreign 
and financial. 

Of the free coinage of silver he has always been an advocate, and 
believes it must be the basis of any financial policy. He is opposed 
to the present national banking system, although business necessities 
have forced him to avail himself of it. On this point and on the 
issue of free coinage he expressed himself at the time of his nomi- 
nation, as follows: 

There are thousands of business men in the East who are turning away 
from the single gold standard. It is not a class issue. In my opinion there is 
not a legitimate business in this country but that would be benefited by the 
restoration of silver to its rightful place in our national currency. I have been 
an advocate of silver ever since Congress demonetized that metal in 1873. I 
held at the time that a mistake had been made, and have had no reason since to 
change my mind. There are two sides to every question, and as an individual 
banker, I have a perfect right to take a position opposite to those who con- 
stitute the majority in the banking business. As I said before, this is not a 
technical question nor a class issue. 

As a member of the National Committee he opposed the gold 
men at every point in the preliminary organization of the Chicago 
Convention, and voted for Daniel against Hill for temporary chairman. 
In consequence of this action he was dropped by the Maine dele- 
gation from the National Committee. On the same day he tele- 
graphed his wife that he was now out of politics forever and for 


good. Within thirty-six hours he was nominated for the second 
highest position within the gift of his party. 

Unexpected and unsought as was this nomination, Mr. Sewall 
recognized at once the honor it conferred and the duty it imposed. 
Of the convention he said in reply to an address of welcome home 
from his fellow citizens of Bath: 

We have had a convention, and it is of that I would speak to you. It was a 
great convention, yet it did not seem to me to be a partisan one. It seemed 
more like the uprising of the people, and they seemed to be controlled by one 
idea, and that idea has filled me for years. They knew that this country is in 
deep distress, that it has been in distress for years, and that the great trouble 
is with our monetary system, and they believed, as I believe, that there is but 
one remedy. 

They entertain no dishonest or dishonorable idea, but they demand that 
we be carried back to the money of our fathers, to that monetary system 
under which this Government flourished for so many years; and they believe 
that is the only road to prosperity. 

mrrir >ii i " i 



AFTER a Sunday's rest at the home of Mrs. Lyman Trumbull, 
and a visit to the newly made grave of her husband, we left 
Chicago early in the afternoon of Monday, the 13th, accom- 
panied by a party of newspaper correspondents. Business called me to 
Salem, Illinois, my birthplace, and this made our homeward journey 
rather a roundabout one. We found the people assembled along the line 
at the more important stations, and it was necessary to respond to sev- 
eral calls for a speech. The largest crowds were gathered at Champaign 
and Mattoon. At the former place I met General Busey, with whom 
I had become well acquainted while in Congress. At Odin we changed 
cars, and while waiting for the train had an opportunity to meet many 
old acquaintances. When we reached Salem, we found the town 
illuminated and the citizens out en masse. We were escorted to the 
home of my sister, Mrs. Baird, where we greeted relatives and friends. 
The next day a brief visit was made to Centralia, where a largely at- 
tended reception had been prepared. On Wednesday, a meeting — for 
Salem a very large one — was held in the court house yard. . Hon. 
L. M. Kagy, who was for two years my law school classmate and 
roommate, presided, and nearly all the Democrats and Populists, and 
many Republicans, took part. As the meeting was, to some extent, 
non-partisan, I tried to avoid political questions. 

Sakm Speedu 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I have no disposition to talk 
politics today, and shall leave the discussion of public questions to those who 
are to follow me. Returning to the scenes which surround my early home, 
the memories of early days crowd out all thoughts of the subject upon which 
wc may diflFer. I remember with such grateful appreciation the kindly feeling 
which has always been manifested toward me here, regardless of church or 
party lines, that I shall say nothing to divide upon any subject those who 
are assembled today. This is the place of my birth, of my boyhood and of 
my early manhood. Three blocks south of this spot I first saw the light of 
day; a little to the northwest I lived from the age of six until I was twenty- 
three, and I shall never cease to be grateful to the parents who took me to 
the farm and there allowed me to acquire during vacation days the physical 
strength which will be needed in the campaign upon which I am entering. 
It was in this court house, by the side of which we meet today, that I first 



conceived the ambition to be a lawyer; it was in this same court house that 
I afterward made my first political speech; it was at the fair grounds near here 
that I delivered my first Fourth of July address. It was to the parental roof, then 
just outside of the limits of the city, that I brought her who had promised to 
share life's joys and sorrows with me. All these happy associations rise today 
before me and leave me no desire to think of other things. I cannot forget 
Salem, nor can I forget those whose kindly faces smiled upon me here before 
fortune smiled. I cannot forget the spot near by, the silent city of the dead, 
where rest the ashes of the father whose upright life has been an inspiration 
to me and whose counsels lingered in my ears after he was gone — the spot 
where rest also the ashes of a mother as tender and as true, as patient, as 
gentle and as kind as God in His infinite love ever gave to man. 

It was in this city that I received my first instructions in democracy — I 
do not use the word in a party sense, but in the broader sense in which 
democracy recognizes the brotherhood of man. It was here that I learned 
the truth expressed by the poet, that "Honor and fame from no condition 
rise.'' It was here that I learned that clothes do not make the man; that all who 
contribute to the nation's greatness and have the good of the country at heart — 
no matter what their position in life, their ancestry or their surroundings — stand 
upon a common ground and share in a common citizenship. It was here, too, 
that I was taught to believe in freedom of conscience — that principle which must 
go hand in hand with a broad democracy; that every man has a right to worship 
God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and that no government 
like ours can dictate how a man shall serve his God. 

There is an ideal plane in politics, and I believe we stand upon it here 
today. We differ in opinion and we differ in party politics, but we meet today 
recognizing these differences and yet each charitable toward the other. We 
are all imbued with the same spirit; we all possess the same ambition; we 
are all endeavoring to carry out the same great purpose. We all want a 
government of the people, by the people and for the people. However we may 
differ as to the means of securing that kind of government, we can differ as 
honest citizens — apart in judgment but together in purpose. I thank the Re- 
publicans who have assembled here; I thank the Populists; and I thank the 
Prohibitionists as well as the Democrats, because while we dispute about the 
questions which rise to the surface from time to time and agitate the people, 
we all agree in those great fundamental principles which underlie our form of 
government. We believe that all men are created equal — not that they are 
equal in talents or in virtue or in merits, but that wherever the government 
comes into contact with the citizen, all must stand equal before the law. We 
agree in the belief that the government should be no respecter of persons — 
that its strength must be used for the protection of the fortunes of the great 
and the possessions of the poor, and that it must stand as an impartial arbiter 
between citizens. We agree in the belief that there are certain inalienable rights 
— rights which government did not give, rights which government should 
not take away. We agree in the belief that governments are instituted among 
men to secure and to preserve these rights, and that they derive their just 
powers from the consent of the government. We know no divine right of 
kings; the people are the sovereign source of all power. These citizens are 


the substantial foundation upon which our form of government rests. While 
our citizens appreciate the responsibilities of citizenship, and strive, each 
in his own way and according to his best judgment, to bring civilization to 
higher ground and to make the Government each year a more fit expression of 
the virtue and integrity of the people, differences on minor issues need not 
disturb them. 

I have mentioned the basic principles upon which has been reared this, 
the greatest nation known to history. I am a believer in the progress of the 
race. Talk not to me about crises through which we cannot pass; tell me not 
of dangers that will overthrow us, or of obstacles too great to overcome; we 
know none such. A brave, a heroic, a patriotic people will be prepared to 
meet every emergency as it arises. Each generation is capable of self-govern- 
ment, and I believe that under our institutions each generation will be more 
capable than the generation which went before. Abraham Lincoln, in the 
greatest of his speeches, said that we had an unfinished work to perform. 
Every generation receives from the preceding generation an unfinished work. 
The works of man are imperfect. Mankind labors on from age to age but 
does not reach perfection. Every generation enjoys the blessings bequeathed 
from the generations past, and we should strive to leave the world better than it 
was when we entered it. To such as are gathered here and throughout the land 
a nation can look with absolute confidence for the wisdom, intelligence, 
patriotism and courage which are necessary in every hour of danger. 

But I must not talk longer. Permit me to thank you again and again for 
the words which you have spoken and for the kindly expression which I see 
on every face. We know not what may be the result of this campaign; we go 
forth to do our duty as we see it, but what the verdict will be we cannot 
know until the votes are counted. No matter whether the campaign results in 
my election or defeat, it cannot rob me of the delightful recollection of the 
confidence and love of the citizens of my boyhood home. 

At another meeting in the evening I spoke for a few minutes, con- 

If there is one lesson taught by six thousand years of history it is that truth 
is omnipotent and will at last prevail. You may impede its progress, you may 
delay its triumph; but after awhile it will show its irresistible power, and those 
who stand in its way will be crushed beneath it. You ask me if these reforms 
which we advocate will be accomplished. I say that if they are right they will 
be accomplished. We who believe that they are right can only do our best and 
give such impetus to them as we are able to give, and then trust to the 
righteousness of our cause to prevail over those who oppose us. 

At an early hour on Thursday morning we took the train for 
St. Louis, arriving there in time for breakfast. From St. Louis we 
went to Kansas City. Mr. Bland was upon this train and was the 
first to greet us when we entered the car. This was the first time 
that I had seen him since the Chicago Convention, and I was im- 
pressed by his cordiality. He traveled with us as far as Jefferson 
City^ acting as master of ceremonies at the receptions along the way. 


At the last mentioned place a large number had assembled at the depot. 
In introducing me, Mr. Bland said : 

I served with Mr. Bryan four years in the House of Representatives, and 
know him thoroughly. I know his heart is with the people in this fight and I 
repeat now, what I have said on other occasions today, that if I had been the 
one to select the leader in this great contest, I would have selected my friend, 
the Hon. William J. Bryan. 

This meeting gave me an opportunity to speak a word in behalf of 

Mr. Bland, who had announced himself as a candidate for Congress. 

I said: 

Jefferson Qty Speech* 

I have just been wondering whether I could find in all this country a com- 
bination of circumstances which would make a speech so pleasant. I am in a 
city named for the greatest Democrat who ever lived, Thomas Jefferson; in the 
Congressional District of one of the most gallant leaders that the Democracy 
has ever known, Richard P. Bland; in a State presided over by one of the most 
courageous defenders of the interests of the common people that any State 
ever had. Governor William J. Stone, and, to leave nothing more to be desired, 
I am in a city whose Mayor is named Silver. Now can you think of any com- 
bination that beats that? Thomas Jefferson, Dick Bland, Bill Stone and Mayor 
Silver — I feel at home here. 

My friends, I am glad to learn that there is no opposition in the Democratic 
party to the nomination of Mr. Bland for Congress. We need him there, and 
if it is not to be his privilege to sign a bill which will restore silver to its ancient 
place by the side of gold, it may be his higher honor to introduce and give his 
name to a bill which, when it becomes a law, will open the mints of the United 
States to the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present legal 
ratio of i6 to i. 

Before reaching Kansas City we were met by a reception com- 
mittee, and upon arrival were escorted to the Coates House. After a 
very pleasant dinner with some of the prominent advocates of bi- 
metallism, the evening was occupied with a short speech to the 
people who had assembled in front of the hotel and a reception in 
the corridors of the hotel. Leaving the next morning, we found an 
enthusiastic throng at St. Joseph and similar gatherings along the 

We entered Nebraska at Rulo, a little village situated in the south- 
east corner of the State. As the train left the bridge, a salute was 
fired by the Rulo Gun Club, and this gave one of the eastern news- 
paper correspondents an opportunity to inquire whether it was a 
reception or a holdup. The entire population seemed to be out; the 
depot was decorated and the town was in holiday attire. This recep- 
tion was especially gratifying because we were now among the con- 
stituents to whose generous confidence I am indebted for two terms 



of Congressional life. At Falls City and Tecumseh still larger num- 
bers had gathered. At Table Rock we were met by a reception com- 
mittee from Lincoln. This committee was composed of men 
and women of all parties. Although the weather was threaten- 
ing, the people of Lincoln were present at the depot to welcome us, 
and from the train to our home the noise was deafening. The day's 
demonstration was concluded with a parade, a speech from the bal- 
cony of the capitol and a reception within. As the mayor and many 
prominent Republicans took part in this reception, I was careful to 
avoid political issues. I said in part : 

Lincoln Speech* 

I am proud tonight to be able to say of those who are assembled here: These 
arc our neighbors. I beg to express to Republicans, Democrats, Populists, Pro- 
hibitionists — ^to all of all parties, the gratitude which we feel for this magnificent 
demonstration. I say we, because she who has shared my struggles deserves her 
full share of all the honors that may come to me. 

This scene tonight recalls the day, nine years ago this month, when, by 
accident, rather than design, I first set foot within the limits of the city of 
Lincoln. I remember the day because I fell in love with the city, and then 
resolved to make it my future home. I came among you as a stranger in a 
strange land, and no people have ever treated a stranger more kindly than 
you have treated me. I desire to express tonight our grateful appreciation 
of all the kindne€S that you have shown us, and to give you the assurance 
that if, by the suflfrages of my countrymen, I am called to occupy, for a 
short space of time, the most honorable place in the gift of the people, 
I shall return to you. This shall be my home, and when earthly honors have 
passed away I shall mingle my ashes with the dust of our beloved State. This 
is no political gathering. I see here the faces of those who do not stand with 
mc on the issues of the day; but I am glad that love can leap across party 
lines and bind in holy friendship those whose judgments dwell apart. 

I thank the Mayor of this city for the charity which he has shown today. 
I thank those of all parties who are willing for a moment to forget political 
diflferences and join in celebrating the fact that at last a Presidential nomination 
has crossed the Missouri river. 

Mileage on First Trip* 

From Chicago to Odin, 111., over Illinois Central Ry 240 miles 

From Odin to Salem, 111., over B. & O. S. W. Ry 6 " 

From Salem to Centralia and return 28 

From Salem to St. Louis, Mo., over B. & O. S. W. Ry 70 

From St. Louis to Kansas City, Mo., over M. P. Ry 288 

From Kansas City to Lincoln, Neb., over Burlington Ry 198 


Total number miles traveled first trip 830 mile$ 



ON July 22, 1896, the National Silver Party Convention met at 
St. Louis in pursuance of the call issued by the Bimetallic 
Union. Hon. Francis G. Newlands, of Nevada, was chosen 
temporary chairman. Mr. Newlands has for many years been an 
active champion of bimetallism and has delivered several very strong 
speeches in support of the doctrine. Upon taking the chair he said: 

Mr* Ne^dand's Speech* 

Gentlemen of the Convention: In January last a conference of the lead- 
ing bimetallists of the country was held at Washington. The expectation at 
that time was that both the Democratic and Republican parties would, at the 
coming national conventions, either declare for the gold standard, or would 
seek to deceive the voters by evasive platforms, and anticipating this the pur- 
pose of the conference was to inaugurate a new political movement for the 
unification of the silver forces of the country regardless of former political affili- 
ations. A national convention was called, and as the result of the organiza- 
tion which has since taken place in almost all the States of the Union, the 
National Silver party meets today to determine what course will best advance 
the cause which we have at heart. 

The conventions of the old parties have been held, and have made public 
declaration of their principles. The Republican party has declared for the 
gold standard. Practically this means gold monometallism, the system of 
finance inaugurated by Harrison and continued by Cleveland. Silver is denied 
its time-honored use as redemption money, and has become simply the material 
upon which is stamped a good promise, and so our greenbacks, our Treasury 
notes and silver certificates, instead of being money, have been turned into a 
gold debt, and the primary money of the country is confined to the limited 
amount of gold approximating $500,000,000, which an adverse balance of trade 
is constantly depleting with all the attendant evils of continuing bond issues. 

The Democratic party has declared for the free and unlimited coinage of 
silver at the ratio of 16 to i without waiting for international action. Whilst 
it has made other declarations in its platform, it has announced that the silver 
question is the paramount issue of the day, and that to it all other questions are 
to be subordinated. It has nominated a candidate of unimpeachable character, 
of exalted ability, of inflexible integrity, of high purpose, who has never faltered 
for a moment in his devotion to the cause of bimetallism. Firm, but not head- 
strong; confident, but not self-sufficient; near to the people, but not dema- 
gogic; determined for reform, yet without a single incendiary speech or private 
utterance to mar his record; possessing a happy combination of the oratorical 



and logical qualities; young, courageous, and enthusiastic, yet deliberate and wise 
he stands as the ideal candidate of a movement, which, though termed a move- 
ment for reform, really means a return to the wise conservatism of our fathers. 

The issue has been presented by a party which has been recently discred- 
ited before the country by the financial and industrial disturbances which it 
has created through the repeal of the Sherman act, and by threatening and 
actual tariff legislation. Dragged into financial agitation by the determined will 
of an executive whom it has since repudiated, it proposes not merely to reverse 
legislation already enacted, but to go further and to declare for the free and 
unlimited coinage of silver; and besides it proposes to guarantee the country 
against further industrial disturbances and any agitation for further changes in 
the tariff law, except such as are necessary to make up the deficit of revenue. 
This latter announcement is particularly gratifying to many of us who believe 
that the silver question and moderate protection are twin issues; that the for- 
mer means protection to the American farmer against the disastrous competi- 
tion of silver countries; that the latter means protection to the American man- 
ufacturer and his employes against the disastrous competition of cheap foreign 
labor, and that it is only by the union of productive forces of the country, 
whether in the field or in the factory, for mutual protection that the remorse- 
less power of monetary contraction can be stayed. While it would have been 
wiser to confine the Democratic platform to issues concerning which bimetal- 
lists would not differ, thus securing the complete unification of all the silver 
forces, yet a simple question is presented to sincere bimetallists throughout 
the country, and that is whether they will permit differences as to non-essential 
issues to divide them — thus insuring the defeat of the common cause — or 
whether, preserving their independence of conviction and action as to non- 
essentials, they shall accept the brilliant leader whom the Democratic party has 
named, and, uniting all the silver forces wherever organized into one invincible 
army, march to victory in November next. I apprehend that the singleness of 
purpose which has thus far characterized this organization will be apparent 
in our deliberations here, and that its action will be inspired by the highest 
patriotism and by an earnest desire for the advancement of the great cause 
which means so much to humanity. 

And now, gentlemen, before entering upon the consideration of the plat- 
forms of the respective parties, let me correct a misapprehension indulged in so 
largely by the Eastern press as to the purpose of this movement. It is not 
intended to pay debts with 50-cent dollars or to drive away gold or to debase 
our currency. Our purpose simply is, by increasing the coinage and use of 
silver, and by giving it equal privileges with gold, to raise its value, and by 
diminishing the strain on gold which gold mononietallisni has caused, to take 
away its unjust appreciation, and thus by putting up the value of silver and pull- 
ing down the value of gold to restore the old ratio, so that sixteen ounces of 
silver will be worth (in bullion as well as in coin) one ounce of gold. Thus 
the gold unit of value — the dollar — based on both metals instead of one, will 
be restored, and we shall have a gold dollar worth 100 cents in silver and a 
silver dollar worth 100 cents in gold. 

If we ask why this rate is determined upon, our answer is not only that that 
has been the customary ratio for years, but also that the total stock of silver 


coin in the world is $4,000,000,000; that the total stock of gold coin is approxi- 
mately the same, and that if the total stocks of silver and gold were each melted 
into a solid mass, the silver mass would be about sixteen times as great in 
weight as the gold mass. We also answer that today the relative production of 
the two metals is approximately in the same proportion. We must establish by 
law some relation of value between the two metals. And we propose to value 
silver as it will stand after restoration to equality of privileges with gold, and 
not while it is discredited by unequal laws. 

The restoration of bimetallism is apparent. It will not only give the world 
an increasing volume of currency, proportioned to the increase of population 
and to the extension of business, commerce and enterprise, but it will do away 
with the dislocation of exchanges that has existed between the gold-standard 
and silver-standard countries, a dislocation which has immensely stimulated the 
production of silver-standard countries in farm products, and which is about 
to stimulate their manufacturing production, to the injury of the gold-standard 
countries. Our wheat fields and our cotton fields have already felt the force 
of silver-standard competition, for the prices of Oriental and other silver- 
standard countries — always stable in silver — have declined in gold, just as gold 
has appreciated. 

The Indian wheat grower receives today just as he did twenty years ago, an 
ounce of silver for a bushel of wheat; he sells it for that price to the Liverpool 
importer, who also offers to the American wheat grower an ounce of silver, 
which, formerly worth $1.20 in gold, is worth today only 65 cents. The result 
is that the American wheat grower receives in gold half of what he received in 
1873. And so it is with cotton and other farm products. The value of our 
exportable products with which we pay our debts has constantly declined, in 
gold the balance of trade is against us, and it must be paid in gold. We pro- 
pose by restoring the old gold price of silver to restore old gold price of our 
farm products, and to change the balance of trade with a favorable instead of an 
adverse balance. That this ought to be accomplished every one admits. 

The Republican party, by its plea for international adjustment, admits that 
the gold standard is a bad thing, and that of bimetallism a good thing; but it 
claims that bimetallism can only be restored by international action. I shall 
not dwell long on this aspect of the question. It is sufficient to say that the 
Republican party limits our negotiation to the leading commercial nations, and 
those, of course, are known to be England, France and Germany. While the 
agricultural and manufacturing classes of those countries are friendly to bimetal- 
lism, and while parliamentary resolutions favoring bimetallism have been 
passed in each, there is no indication that the executive department of any of 
those governments is in any way using its diplomatic powers to accomplish it. 
The fact is that the executive department of importance, including our own, 
is directed in its financial policy by the gold monopoly. While France indicates 
a friendliness for bimetallism, and while Germany in a measure has relaxed its 
hostility, both declare that they will not act without the co-operation of Eng- 
land, and England, through the ministry of both her political parties, has 
declared her unalterable purpose to adhere to the gold standard. 

The reason is apparent. The great advance of gold monometallism has 
given England the control of the credits of the world. Her people now own 


bonds of other countries to an amount aggregating many times the total gold 
stock of the world. England is built up. Her narrow limits will not permit 
much increase of population. Her local property cannot be much increased in 
value. By her manufactures and her extended commerce she has invaded every 
country with her forces of industry and enterprise, and she has accumulated 
the gold of the world, and she now loans it over and over again to the coun- 
tries from which she has made profit. Her wealth consists mainly of credits; 
and the creditor class has become the dominating power. England has always 
been a class-governed country. The land-owning class, once so controlling, 
gave way to the manufacturing class under the leadership of Cobden; and the 
corn laws prostrated the agricultural interests. The manufacturing class has 
now yielded to the creditor or banking class, which today dominates the coun- 
cils of England, fixes her policies and enters her decrees. 

The friends of bimetallism stood expectant when Balfour came into power. 
They have only recently realized that shackles have been upon his limbs, and 
that he is powerless to aid the cause which he so brilliantly advocated. What 
arguments can we use to abate England's purpose? That the amount of 
gold in the world is too limited for the world's business? Her answer is that 
her people own almost all the gold in the world; that they have enough and 
a plethora, and out of their abundance loan it to other nations on bonds and 
mortgages. Will you say that gold appreciates, and that products have dimin- 
ished in value? Her answer will be that she desires its appreciation. Will you 
say that the appreciation of gold has stimulated the production of silver- 
standard countries, and that their competition has lowered the gold price of all 
farm products? Her answer will be that she raises but little of these* that she 
buys, and that the cheaper she buys the better. 

Should we point to the land-owning class in England, the burdens of 
which have become almost intolerable, her answer will be that some interests 
must suffer in pursuing a great national policy, and that the English govern- 
ment will stand as heretofore, for the interests of the governing class of the 
country, the class which subordinates every subject of domestic and economic 
policy to the desire of maintaining a constantly increasing control over the 
products of labor throughout the world by a system which makes her a con- 
trolling power in peace and war; a partner without risk in all enterprises, and 
the absorber of the profits of world-wide production. 

To this policy of enlightened selfishness no man who knows the controlling 
motives of both nations and individuals can oppose rational objections. We do 
not object to English policy on English sod. We object to an English policy 
on American soil. 

England's wealth consists of gold; our wealth consists of property and 
products. England is a creditor nation; the United States is a debtor nation. 
England is interested in having money dear and products cheap. We rely on 
good prices for our products in order to pay our foreign debts. England pro- 
poses to pursue a policy which will increase the value of the gold that she 
owns. Ought not we to pursue a policy which will increase the value of the 
property we own and of the products which we export? Do the imitators of 
the English policy in this country realize that there is a difference in interest 
between the buyer and the seller, between the creditor nation and the debtor 


or producing nation? What should be our policy? Why, to increase the use 
of silver and in that way increase its values so as to restore its old parity with 

We find that the dislocation between gold and silver has given the advan- 
tage in production to countries that are not on the gold basis; that their farm 
products (whose prices are stable in silver although reduced in gold), are com- 
peting with ours in foreign markets to our own disadvantage, and that their 
manufactured products, produced at a labor cost stable in silver, but reduced in 
gold, oflfer a menace in the future to our home manufactures, protected though 
they be by tariff laws. We have at stake the interests of the great debtor 
nation of the world; of a nation yielding the greatest amount of farm products 
in the world — farm products on which we rely for the payment of our foreign 
debts and the prices of which have been driven down in gold as silver has 

The Republican party proposes to confine our bimetallic negotiation to but 
three countries — England, France and Germany — whose interests as gold own- 
ing and creditor nations are directly opposed to our interests, while it ignores 
the numerous debtor and producing nations with which an eflfective alliajncc 
might be made for the increase of the use of silver. 

Where is the gold of the world? Refer to the Mint Director's report and 
you will find that of the four thousand million dollars of gold in the world, all 
of which, if melted would occupy a cube of only twenty-two feet, one-half is 
actually located in England, Germany and France. Look at the registered list 
of bonds and mortgages and you will find that the other half though scattered 
in other countries, is tied by the string of bond or mortgage to those three 
creditor countries so that it may be drawn away at any time from debtor coun- 
tries, thus prostrating their business and imperiling their finances. So that 
instead of devoting their time to uninterrupted productions of wealth, their 
energies are wasted trying to catch gold on the fly. Think of it! One-half 
of the gold of the world actually needed for the local business of those three 
countries, hardly discernible in the vast area of the earth's surface, and yet our 
monometallic friends tell us that the other half is sufficient for the business of 
the rest of the world, occupying a vast area of country and having a population 
twelve times as great as that of the three combined. 

All agree that the competitive use of silver in the world's exchanges should 
be restored. The Republican party proposes that we shall limit our negotia- 
tions only to the beneficiaries of the gold monopoly and that we shall not apply 
to the victims of that monopoly for assistance or aid. Was monopoly ever 
beaten down by such methods? 

Was monopoly ever impaired by persuasion addressed to the monopolist? 
In transportation the victims of monopoly resort to a competitive road. In the 
public lighting the victims resort to a competitive gas or electric light com- 
pany; but according to the doctrine of the Republican party the victims of the 
gold monopoly who so greatly outnumber the beneficiaries of that monopoly 
are not invited to join the ground for common defense and protection, but in 
place of that the United States, the victim suffering most of all, stretches out 
the hands of diplomatic persuasion to the countries whose monopoly it seeks 
to break down. 


Had the Republican party proposed in its platform — instead of confining its 
negotiations only to three countries that have a plethora of metallic money — to 
call a conference of the debtor and producing nations of the world whose stocks 
of metallic money (both gold and silver) are small and which have been com- 
pelled to issue large amounts of depreciated paper money because of the scarcity 
of metallic money, we would then have a contemplated arrangement with coun- 
tries whose absorbing capacity for silver would be great. The first step, how- 
ever, toward such a union is the courageous action of this country. Let that 
action be taken and we will have the intelligent co-operation of Russia, Austria 
and other European nations that have made ineffectual attempts by the accu- 
mulation of gold to provide for gold redemption, all of whom know that their 
accumulated gold would slip out of their boundaries like water out of a sieve 
if gold redemption were attempted. For it is a singular fact that there is not a 
debtor country in the world that has been able to maintain gold payments of its 
paper money, except our own, and we accomplish it only with bond issue, 
which in reality constitutes the premium paid for gold. 

But enough of international conference. It has simply been used as a club 
to beat down national action on the silver question. Are we not, gentlemen, 
exaggerating the difficulties of the task before us? Remember that in order 
to restore silver it is only necessary to absorb the current product of the mines. 
The accumulated stock is in the shape of coin bearing the stamp of various gov- 
ernments, and it is absurd to assume that the owners of such coin will send 
it here simply to receive the American stamp. Silver coin it is and silver coin 
it would remain. There is no surplus anywhere in the shape of bullion, for the 
bullion in the Treasury vaults is constructively coined and is represented by 
silver certificates and Treasury notes now in circulation. 

The current product of the mines is now all absorbed in current uses — in 
the arts, in coinage and for other purposes. Any demand that we create would 
be a new demand, and would have a tendency to increase the value of the cur- 
rent product. But we are told that increase of value will increase production. 
Of course, no man can foretell what the production of silver will be, but the 
best test of the limitation of the future is the limitation of the past, and we all 
know that all the silver coined in the world — the result of operation of silver 
mining for ages — can be put into a cube of sixty-six feet. The world has never 
produced enough of metallic money. The fact that today over one-fourth of 
the money of the world is uncovered paper money proves this. 

Now, what increased use can you suggest for silver in this country that will 
increase the value of the product of the mines? Our per capita circulation is 
currently stated to be $22 to $25. Our population is increasing at the rate 
of over two millions a year. It would take between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 
a year to maintain the present per capita so long as the population increases at 
that rate. But is a per capita circulation of $25 sufficient? Such a per capita 
circulation might be sufficient for a credit nation like England, whose area 
is limited, whose population is dense, whose exchanges are easy and whose 
ability to increase her coin reserves is made easy by the great debts owing to 
her people. But certainly it is not sufficient in a vast debtor country like this, 
with its immense area, its scattered population and its limited methods of 
exchange. If we should increase our per capita to $30 we would have to coin 
|70iOOO,ooo a year for five years. 


Besides, our national bank circulation has been gradually contracting and 
is bound to be withdrawn altogether when the balance of trade is restored in 
our favor by good prices for our products and the surplus of revenue is applied 
to the national debt. It will take $40,000,000 a year for five years to take the 
place of the national bank notes, so that we have here an increased demand 
for silver of nearly $200,000,000 in this country, without any inflation or expan- 
sion beyond a per capita of $30. This demand is equal to the entire cur- 
rent product of the mines, which is already exhausted in current use. Can 
any man say that a new demand of such magnitude shall not restore the old par- 
ity? And if the old parity is restored, will not this talk about 50-cent dollars 
and a debased currency entirely cease? The gold monometallists propose to 
maintain this parity by the redemption of silver in gold. We propose the 
rightful method of restoring parity by increasing the use and consequently 
increasing the value of silver, and by restoring the time-honored use as money 
of redemption equally with gold. 

But suppose the fears of our alarmist friends are realized, and that nature 
instead of exposing her silver treasury as she has done in the past, gradually 
and progressively to meet the wants of the world for money, should expose it 
in large abundance, is not this a matter of easy control? Recollect that silver 
mines already existing will soon be exhausted. The Comstock lode in my own 
State, which alarmed all Europe, is now reduced in its production to $500,000 
per annum. The mines of the future are in the ungranted mineral lands of 
this country and Mexico, for remember that Mexico and the United States 
produce two-thirds of the silver of the world. Will it not be easy to limit those 
grants, either by exacting royalty or by total withdrawal, so that the silver 
stores of the future may not be unduly drawn upon for the present, and that the 
calm and equal production of silver commensurate with its use may be estab- 
lished and secured? 

For three years you have been on the gold standard. Do you like it? 
For twenty-three years you have waited for international action. Can you 
wait longer, and who are to take the lead in this reform — ^the bene6ciaries of the 
gold monopoly or its victims? And who are the victims? Look on the map 
of your country and mark the area of distress as indicated by the railroads that 
have been placed in the hands of receivers since 1893, comprising nearly one- 
third of the entire mileage of the country. You will find it in the mining belt, 
comprising six States and three Territories, whose basis of industry, with which 
all their industries, agricultural, commercial, railroad and banking were core- 
lated, is suflfering from the decline of silver. Mark the wheat belt of the North- 
west and the cotton belt of the South and you will find that in those areas 
devoted to mining, to wheat-raising and cotton-growing more than one-half 
of the local railroad mileage has gone into the hands of receivers since 1893. 

Low price products will not stand high rates. Producers who produce at 
a loss cannot buy goods that require transportation, and so the railroads have 
suffered in the transportation of the products of the region through which they 
pass and of the goods which they return to the producers in exchange. The 
gradual fall in the price of silver has for twenty years seriously affected the 
Western and Southern States, as their products have been compelled to com- 
pete with the product of silver-standard countries, the prices of which, stable 



in silver, have gradually gone down in gold until their price is now one-half of 
what it used to be. 

It is true that the New England and Middle States suflfered but little until 
1893, and then largely because of diminished markets in the South and West 
and loss from their railroad securities and other interests in the South and West. 
They suffered the least because they were creditor States whose margin of secu- 
rity did not disappear until 1893, and also because they were manufacturing 
States whose industries were protected against cheap European labor, thus 
enabling them to monopolize the home market. They have not yet suffered 
from Oriental competition, for the manufactured production of those countries, 
stimulated by the margin of security, did not disappear until 1893. They have 
not yet suffered from Oriental competition, for the manufactured production 
of those countries, stimulated by the appreciation of gold, has thus far met 
only the requirements of the local markets, although it has seriously affected 
English and German manufacturers who used to supply such markets; but the 
Eastern States will soon suffer from Oriental competition. Japanese produc- 
tion is looking out for American markets, for their products will naturally 
seek a country whose labor cost is the highest. No tariff short of absolute 
exclusion will protect the Eastern States against this invasion, and exclusion 
is impossible, for the Western and Southern States will not consent to a policy 
which surrenders their products to the competition of silver-standard countries. 
It is evident that, with a view to protect the products of this country, whether 
from the farm or the factory, against the products of silver-standard countries, 
our policy should be, by increasing the use of silver, to pull up its value and 
thus, by the use of a competitive metal, to pull down the value of gold. By 
doing this we will take away at least half of the efficiency of the competing 
labor of silver-standard countries. 

We therefore claim that the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to i 
by this country is practicable; that it will restore the old relative value of silver 
and gold, release this country from dependence upon foreign gold, impair the 
competitive efficiency of the cheap labor of silver-standard countries, restore 
the value of our agricultural products with which we pay our debts abroad 
and save this country from a manufacturing competition that will prove destruct- 
ive. This question has not been fought out in the manufacturing States of the 
country as it has been in the mining camps, but the manufacturers of this coun- 
try before the end of this campaign will learn that their interests are in com- 
mon with those of the general producers of the country, and the Oriental com- 
petition which has been so destructive to the farmers will, in the end, be 
destructive to the manufactui*ers. 

We hope to see the wheat interests and the mining interests, the cotton 
interests and the manufacturing interests united against the opponents of bimet- 
allism. For recollect that it is the dealers in money, the dealers in products 
and the carriers of the products that have made a union against the productive 
energies of the country, whether those productive energies are displayed in cot- 
ton and wool manufactures in the New England and Middle States, the iron and 
coal industries in Pennsylvania and the cotton industries of the South, or in the 
mining of silver in the great West; and we may rest assured that this country 

will in time pursue a policy of enlightened self-interest It will realize it is to 


its interest as a producer of over one-third of the entire silver of the world, 
as the greatest debtor nation of the world, as the greatest producing nation in 
the world, to stop the appreciation of gold, to stop the increase in value of 
every unit of this four thousand millions in gold, whose present home is in three 
foreign countries. And with the change will come beneficent results not only 
to producers, but to the banking, mercantile and railroad interests, which are 
now so steadily opposing us. They will realize that their prosperity is based 
upon the general prosperity of the entire country, and that the prosperity of 
this country cannot continue so long as debtor and producing nations recognize 
gold as the only money metal, and by their action build up its value and increase 
its control over the products of labor. 

This campaign is to open up an era of education, and into this work the 
silver party enters animated by no sectional spirit, controlled by no feeling 
of envy against the more prosperous, but inspired by the desire to maintain 
a broad American policy which shall protect the interests of American produc- 
tion whether in the mining camps of the mountains, the wheat fields of the 
West, the cotton fields of the South, or the factories of New England. But 
let us remember always in this contest that union is strength, and that the 
motto of our opponents is now as it has always been, "Divide and conquer." 

For permanent chairman the convention selected William P. St. 
John, Esq., of New York. Mr. St. John, until recently connected with 
one of the large banks of New York City, has been a most earnest 
advocate of free coinage and, in spite of the local opposition which he 
has encountered, has defended bimetallism with great courage and 
ability. He at last, in a business way, suffered martyrdom for his con- 
victions, relinquishing a large salary as president of the bank rather 
than keep silent upon a matter which he believed to be of vital im- 
portance to the country. I g^ve below the speech which he delivered 
upon taking the chair: 

Mr* St John^s Speech* 

Gentlemen of the Convention: The skill and efficiency of your labors in 
the past have been rewarded by the adoption of your demand for legislation 
by two great organizations of the people, namely: The Democracy and the 
People's party. If now you are able to induce a coalition of these two organi- 
zations for the one purpose, the desired achievement on behalf of the people will 

Assuming then that you will prevail upon those patriots calling themselves 
the People's party to endorse the nomination of Bryan and Sewall, it is 
advisable to warrant the desirability of the end in view. 

It is among the first principles in finance that the value of each dollar, 
expressed in prices, depends upon the total number of dollars in circulation. 
The plane of prices is high when the number of dollars in circulation is great 
in proportion to the number of things to be exchanged by means of dollars, 
and low when the dollars are proportionately few. The plane of prices at 
present and for some time past is and has been ruinously low. The increase 


of our population at about two millions a year, scattered over our immense 
territory, calls for increasing exchanges, and thereby demands an increasing 
number of dollars in circulation. The increase in the number of dollars when 
dollars are confined to gold is not sufficiently rapid to meet the growth of 
our exchanges. The consequence is a growing value of dollars, or a diminish- 
ing value of everything else expressed in dollars; which is to say a tendency 
toward constantly declining prices. 

The fountain head of our prosperity has run dry. Our farmers all over 
the country have endured the depression in prices, until they get about $8 or 
$9 an acre for an expenditure of $io per acre, and the like. Their credit is 
exhausted at their country stores. The country store ceases to order from the 
city merchant, the city merchant reduces his demand upon the manufacturer. 
Manufactures are curtailed. The consequence is that employes and all elements 
of labor arc being discharged, and wages are lowered to those who continue 
in employment. The sufferings of the farmers, who constitute nearly one-half 
our population, are thus enforced upon the city merchant, the manufacturer and 
all forms of labor. These combined elements constitute the overwhelming 
majority of voters. Their intelligent conclusion will be felt when expressed 
at the polls. 

The banker also is without prosperity unless prosperity is general through- 
out the United States. He must learn to distinguish between cheap money and 
money commanding a low rate of interest. The dollar worth two bushels of 
wheat is a dear dollar, and yet it commands interest in Wall street at present 
of but two per cent, per annum on call. If the dollar can be cheapened by 
increasing the number of dollars, so that each dollar will buy less wheat, the 
increasing prices of wheat will increase the demand for dollars to invest 
in its production. Tlien the borrower of dollars to invest in the pro- 
duction of wheat, being reasonably sure of a profit from that employ- 
ment of the money, can afford to pay interest for its use as a part of 
his profit. In other words, interest is a share of the profit on the em- 
ployment of money. So that abundant money, money readily obtainable, which 
is to say really cheap money, is the money which commands a high rate of 
interest, as a share of the profit of the borrower in using it. 

As we appeal to the country, in the justice of our cause, one or two 
points of common inquiry must be satisfied, as follows: 

The experience of Mexico is held up for our alarm. We answer, first, that 
Mexico is conspicuously prosperous at home. Her increase in manufactures, 
railway earnings and the like in recent years is phenomenal. Second, Mexico 
is no criterion for the United States, for the reason that she has a foreign trade 
indebtedness of about $20,000,000 annually in excess of the value of her ex- 
ports of cotton, sugar, coffee, hides and the like, which must be paid for in 
the surplus product of her mines. Her silver, therefore, goes abroad as 
merchandise and at a valuation fixed by the outside world. The United States, 
on the other hand, is a nation of seventy millions of people, scattered over a 
territory seventeen times the area of France. A single one of our railway 
systems, the Erie, exceeds the aggregate railway mileage of all Mexico. We 
spare silver will furnish us. Hence, our silver money, at home and abroad, will 
oflFer an employment for money to an aggregate greater than the world's 
be valued as the money of the United States. 


The opposition threatens us with a flood of Europe's silver upon our 
reopened mints. We answer, Europe has no silver but her silver money. Her 
silver money values silver at from three cents to seven cents on the dollar 
higher than ours. Hence the European merchant or banker must sacrifice 
from three to seven per cent, of his full legal tender money in order to 
rccoin it at our mints. Europe's silverware, like America's silverware, carries 
in it the additional value of labor and the manufacturer's profit. 

They threaten us with a flood of silver from the far East. We answer that 
the course of silver is invariably eastward and never toward the west British 
India is a perpetual sink of silver, absorbing it, never to return, by from 
thirty to sixty million dollars' worth every year. And India's absorption of 
silver will be enlarged by the steadiness of price for silver fixed by our reopened 

They threaten us with a "sudden retirement of $600,000,000 gold with the 
accompanying panic, causing contraction and commercial disaster unparalleled.*' 
We answer that our total stock of gold, other than about $10,000,000 or $15,000,- 
000 circulating on the Pacific Coast, is already in retirement. Practically all 
our gold is in the United States Treasury or held by banks. The gold in the 
Treasury will remain there, if the Secretary avails of his option to redeem 
United States notes in silver. The gold in the banks constitutes the quiet and 
undisturbed portion of their reserves against their liabilities. It will continue 
to do money duty as such reserves after free coinage for silver is enacted. 
Hence a premium on it will not contract the currency. The utmost possible 
contraction of the currency will be the few millions circulating on the Pacific 
Coast, and this will be retired but slowly. 

A similar threat of a flight of gold was made for the Bland Act of 1878. 
President Hayes was urged to veto it, but Congress passed it over the veto. 
Instead of a flight of gold as had been predicted, we gained by importation 
$4,000,000 the first year, $70,000,000 the next and $90,000,000 the third year. 
During the twelve years that the Act was on the statute book we gained 
$221,000,000 of foreign gold. Instead of the destruction of our credit abroad, 
as had been predicted, the United States four per cent, loan, which stood at loi 
on the day of enactment, sold at 120 per cent, within three years, and at 130 
per cent, subsequently. Instead of defeating the resumption of specie pay- 
ments on January first of the following year, the 24,006,000 silver dollars which 
were coined in 1878 and circulated by means of the silver certificates, reduced the 
demand upon the Government for gold. Hence the threat of disaster now is 
without historic foundation. 

This, then, is what will follow the reopening of our mints to silver: The 
gold already in the Treasury will remain there, if common sense dictates the 
Treasury management, that is if the Treasury exercises its option to redeem 
United States notes in silver. A premium on gold will not occasion a con- 
traction of the currency, bank hoards of gold continuing to serve as a portion 
of bank reserves against their liabilities. A premium on gold will tend to in- 
crease our exports by causing a higher rate of foreign exchange, that is to 
say by yielding a larger net return in dollars on the sale of bills of exchange 
drawn against goods exported. Such premium will tend to diminish our imports 
by increasing the cost of bills of exchange with which to pay for goods 


The tendency of increasing our exports and decreasing our imports will 
be, first, to set our spindles running, swell the number of paid operatives, 
increase their wages, thereby adding to the number and paying capacity of 
consumers, and thus enlarge our home market for all home products and 
manufactures, with prosperity in general as the result assured. 

The tendency of increasing our exports and decreasing our imports will 
be, second, to establish a credit balance of trade for the United States. A 
credit balance of trade means that Europe has become our debtor and must 
settle with us in money. Europe's silver money is overvalued in her gold, 
compared with ours, by from three to seven cents on the dollar. The European 
merchant or banker will therefore make his trade settlements with us in gold 
more profitably by from three to seven per cent, than in his silver. With the 
instant that European trade settlements with the United States are made in 
gold, parity for our gold and silver money is established in the markets of 
the world. • 

Therewith, the 371.25 grains of pure silver in our silver dollar and the 23.22 
grains of gold in our gold dollar become of exactly equal worth, as bullion, 
in New York. 

Free and unlimited coinage for silver in the United States together with 
the present free and unlimited coinage for gold, will, thus, provide us an in- 
creasing aggregate of money. The increasing number of dollars cheapening the 
dollar, along with the increasing quantity of commodities cheapening the com- 
modities, will tend to maintain prices when the commodities are in fair abun- 
dance. Producers obtaining then more dollars the more abundant their 
products, will be remunerated in some fair proportion to their toil. Our 
producers will be thus assured their fair share of the real wealth which they 
produce. This will tend to the better distribution and dissemination of 
wealth as against the present pernicious tendency to aggregate wealth in a 
few hands. 

After the permanent organization had been completed a committee 
was appointed to confer with the Populist Convention, then in session 
in the same city. 

On the second day of the convention little was done in the transac- 
tion of business, the convention being disposed to wait to consult 
further with the Populists. During the day a speech was delivered by 
Congressman Charles A. Towne, of Minnesota. Mr. Towne gained 
a national reputation through a speech which he delivered in the House 
of Representatives on the 8th day of February, 1896. The speech was 
very widely circulated immediately after its delivery and still more 
extensively during the campaign. It treated with great force and 
clearness the subject of falling prices. The contest for perma- 
nent chairman of the Silver Convention lay between him and Mr. St. 
John, and when the latter was chosen the former was made permanent 
vice-chairman. Mr. Towne was present at the Republican National 
Convention, though not a delegate, and constantly conferred with the 


silver Republicans. Throughout the campaign his services were in con- 
stant demand and his time wholly devoted to the success of bimetallism. 

In addition to the speech of Mr. Towne, addresses were made by 
Judge Joseph Sheldon of Connecticut, a pioneer in the silver cause; 
Mrs. Helen M. Cougar of Indiana, who rendered most efficient 
service during the entire campaign, and ex-Covernor John P. St. John 
of Kansas, also an able champion of bimetallism. 

At the afternoon session on Thursday a poll was taken to determme 
the former party affiliations of the delegates present, and the result 
showed 526 who had been Republicans, 146 who had been Democrats, 
49 who had been Populists, 9 who had been Prohibitionists, 9 who had 
been Independent, i who had been a Nationalist, and i who had been 
a Greenbacker. 

On Friday Senator Stewart, of Nevada, was called for and delivered 
a speech in which he described the Chicago Convention as he witnessed 
it. A poll was taken to ascertain how many had seen military service, 
and it was learned that 196 had served in the Union army during the 
late war, 49 in the Confederate army, and 4 in the Mexican war. 

Senator John P. Jones, of Nevada, chairman of the committee on 

Resolutions, presented the following platform, which was adopted by 

unanimous vote. 

Silver Party Platform* 

The National Silver party, in convention assembled, hereby adopts the fol- 
lowing declaration of principles: 

The paramount issue at this time in the United States is indisputably the 
money question. It is between the gold standard, gold bonds and bank cur-, 
rency on the one side, and the bimetallic standard, no bonds and government 
currency on the other. On this issue we declare ourselves to be in favor of a 
distinctly American financial system. We are unalterably opposed to the single 
gold standard and demand the immediate return to the constitutional stand- 
ard of gold and silver by the restoration by this Government, independently of 
any foreign power, of the unrestricted coinage of both gold and silver into 
standard money, at the ratio of 16 to i, and upon terms of exact equality, as 
they existed prior to 1873; the silver coin to be a full legal tender equally with 
gold for all debts and dues, public and private, and we favor such legislation 
as will prevent for the future the demonetization of any kind of legal tender 
money by private contract. 

We hold that the power to control and regulate a paper currency is insep- 
arable from the power to coin money, and hence that all currency intended to 
circulate as money should be issued and its volume controlled by the general 
Government only, and should be legal tender. 

We are unalterably opposed to the issue by the United States of interest- 
bearing bonds in time of peace, and we denounce as a blunder worse than a 
crime the present Treasury policy, concurred in by a Republican house, of 


plnnging the country into debt by hundreds of millions in the vain attempt 
to maintain the gold standard by borrowing gold; and we demand the pay- 
ment of all coin obligations of the United States, as provided by existing laws, 
in either gold or silver coin, at the option of the Government, and not at the 
option of the creditor. 

The demonetization of silver in 1873 enormously increased the demand 
for gold, enhancing its purchasing power and lowering all prices measured 
by that standard, and since that unjust and indefensible act the prices of Amer- 
ican products have fallen upon an average nearly fifty per cent., carrying down 
with them proportionately the money value of all other forms of property. 
Such fall of prices has destroyed the profits of legitimate industry, injuring 
the producer for the benefit of the non-producer, increasing the burden of the 
debtor, swelling the gains of the creditor, paralyzing the productive energies 
of the American people, relegating to idleness vast numbers of willing work- 
ers, sending the shadows of despair into the home of the honest toiler, filling 
the land with tramps and paupers and building up colossal fortunes at the 
money centers. 

In the effort to maintain the gold standard the country has within the past 
two years, in a time of profound peace and plenty, been loaded down with 
$262,000,000 of additional interest bearing debt under such circumstances as to 
allow a syndicate of native and foreign bankers to realize a net profit of millions 
on a single deal. It stands confessed that the gold standard can only be upheld 
by so depleting our paper currency as to force the prices of our products below 
the European and even below the Asiatic level, to enable us to sell in foreign 
markets, thus aggravating the very evils of which our people so bitterly com- 
plain, degrading American labor and striking at the foundations of our civili- 
zation itself. The advocates of the gold standard persistently claim that the 
cause of our distress is overproduction — that we have produced so much that 
it has made us poor — which implies that the true remedy is to close the fac- 
tory, abandon the farm and throw a multitude of people out of employment, a 
doctrine that leaves us unnerved and disheartened and absolutely without hope 
for the future. We affirm it to be unquestioned that there can be no such 
economic paradox as overproduction and at the same time tens of thousands 
of our fellow citizens remaining half clothed and half fed, and who are pite- 
ously clamoring for the common necessities of life. 

Over and above all other questions of policy, we are in favor of restoring 
to the people of the United States the time-honored money of the Constitu- 
tion — gold and silver; not one, but both — the money of Washington and Ham- 
ilton and Jefferson and Monroe and Jackson and Lincoln, to the end that the 
American people may receive honest pay for an honest product; that an Amer- 
ican debtor may pay his just obligations in an honest standard and not in a 
standard that has appreciated one hundred per cent, above all the great staples 
of our country; and to the end, further, that silver standard countries may be 
deprived of the unjust advantage which they now enjoy in the difference in 
exchange between gold and silver — an advantage which tariff legislation alone 
cannot overcome. 

We therefore appeal to the people of the United States to leave in abey- 
ance for the moment all other questions, however important and even mo- 


mentous they may appear, to sunder, if need be, all former party ties and affilia- 
tions, and unite in one supreme effort to free themselves and their children 
from the domination of the money power — ^a power more destructive than any 
which has ever been fastened upon the civilized men of any race or in any age. 
And upon the consummation of our desires and efforts we evoke the gracious 
favor of Divine Providence. 

The nominations were next taken up. My name was presented by 
Hon. Edward C. Little, of Kansas, who spoke as follows : 

Mr. Little's Speech, 

By the gracious favor of our neighbor Nebraska, the State of Kansas is 
accorded the privilege of placing before this convention for your nomination, 
the, next President of the United States. A long generation ago, the twin 
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska were cast adrift upon the waves of poli- 
tics, to return to a redeemed and regenerated nation, the bread of human free- 
dom on the waters of human life. In that great epoch Kansas stood first. Her 
proud history is written yonder in your stars. Nebraska's day and Nebraska's 
man have come. The ark of the covenant of human freedom which John 
Brown of Osawatomie pitched at the foot of Mount Oread, we now resign to 
the Valley of the Platte. Again the doors of the nation's theater are open. 
The curtain rises and Nebraska takes the stage. The scene has shifted, gentle- 
men, from the historic, but cabined, cribbed and confined walls of Faneuil Hall, 
to that vaster arena in which the Father of Waters rolls unfettered to the sea. 

Through a long term of years the world has experienced a depression in 
business, such as was never before known, touching every department of human 
industry, reaching every quarter of the civilized globe, and involving every 
Christian land. For twenty-three years our people have suffered a financial 
system which divided all we own and doubled all we owe. Recent events have 
hot reassured those who are interested in maintaining the rights of average 
men. Within the last twelve months we have been told that we hold the right 
of trial by jury at the option of Federal judges. From Runnymede till now no 
man of Anglo-Saxon blood has ever dreamed that such was the law. Within 
the last twelve months our highest tribunal has reversed a decision which John 
Marshall respected and to which Roger Taney bowed, and has annulled a law 
that was made when the foundations of the Republic were laid. Therefore the 
incomes of the great fortunes accumulated during the last thirty years pay no 
tribute to support the government which protects them. That great convention 
which recently assembled in this city raised no voice of protest, but abandoning 
the interests and deserting the traditions of the American people for the first 
time committed the Republican party to the maintenance of a single gold 
standard. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the rate of 
$262,000,000 per annum? They would cover the American flag with dollar 
marks bigger than the spots on the sun. They put William McKinley on the 
platform but they put Grover Cleveland in the platform. The hand was the 
hand of Esau, but the voice was the voice of Jacob. The St. Louis Convention 
may have changed its mind but the American people have not altered their 
opinions. They have thrown down the gauntlet and we cannot honorably 
avoid the conflict. 

/y^^..^ /^,^:^ 


Self respect will not permit us longer to defer to the arrogant assumptions 
of those whose financial policy leaves the Treasury unarmed, unguarded, un- 
picketed against the raids of Wall street highwaymen, and brings the farmer 
so low that his products go like salvation, without money and without price. 
After the rank incompetence manifested by our financiers during recent years 
that they should still presume to instruct anybody is the very impudence of 
arrogant audacity. Columbia has reached her majority. We now propose that 
she conduct her own affairs without dictation from foreign financiers or sug- 
gestion from foreign parliament. We intend to enforce every sentence, every 
clause, every word, which Thomas Jefferson put in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. We hoped for better things from the Republican party. Long 
enough has humanity walked through the fiery furnace. Soon or never must 
God's poor be led by stiller waters and into greener pastures. In spite of Con- 
fucius and Buddha, of Socrates in prison, of Jesus of Nazareth on the Cross, 
power is still arrogant, greed is still impudent, and talent is still selfish. The 
time has come to determine whether this nation is ruled by an Almighty Dollar 
or by an Almighty God. 

In a few days William J. Bryan of Nebraska will stand in Madison Square 
Garden — the champion of Lazarus at the gates of Dives. Both will be present. 
The Roman ambassador stood before the Carthaginian Senate and said: ''I 
hold peace and war in the folds of my toga. Which shall I shake out to you?" 
The Carthaginians cried, "War, war," and were swept from the earth. The 
eloquent Senator Vilas of Wisconsin said at Chicago: ^'Perhaps somewhere in 
this country there lurks a Robespierre, a Danton, a Marat." I will eliminate 
the perhaps for the distinguished senator. Always in the swamps of want, 
in the jungles of poverty there lurks a Robespierre, a Danton, a Marat. There 
be men in this country who will do well to listen to Mirabeau that Danton 
shall never come. Christ forgave the thief and pardoned the courtesan, but the 
money changers he scourged from the temple. Long enough has selfish and 
greedy thrift dominated the councils of the Republic. Washington never 
fought, Warren never fell to establish an oligarchy of baronial millionaires. 
Eighteen centuries have passed away, but it is not yet too late to crucify Barab- 
bas. The people have accepted the challenge Wall street issued at St. Louis. 

Pleasant It Is for the Little Tin Gods, 

When the Great Jove nods. 

But the Little Tin Gods make their mistakes. 

That they miss the hour when the Great Jove wakes. 

The sophistical logic of "business" argument cannot avoid, the enticing 
glitter of Lombard gold cannot disguise, the sonorous periods of rounded elo- 
quence cannot disprove the simple proposition that for a long term of years 
our property has diminished in value, while our liabilities make greater demands 
than are named in the stipulation. The honest dollar is the dollar of the con- 
tract. We stand ready to endure the due and forfeit of our bond — ^no more, 
no less. "If you deny it fie upon your law." Therefore we have assembled in 
the assured conviction of the ultimate and I believe the immediate triumph 
of the people's cause. To doubt it is to impeach the intelligence of the Amer- 
ican people. To deny it is to question the justice of the Great Creator. There- 
fore I present to you no Moses to lead the people forty years in the wilderness, 


but a gifted young Joshua who shall bid the golden sun and the silver moon 

stand still while he fights the battle of human freedom. 

The nation cried out in her hour of peril and the West gave her Abraham 


The land that loves him guards hit rest. 
The West, the West, the Rowdy West. 

Again the nation calls and the West gives her a man sprung from the same 
soil, inspired by the same motives, loved by the same neighbors, and blessed 
we fondly believe by the same God. He is by ancestry, birth, education and 
experience, instinctively and distinctively an American — the very flower of the 
nation's purest life. 

Civilization oscillates like a pendulum, from Solon the law-giver to Alexan- 
der the Conqueror, from wolf-nursed Romulus to Imperial Caesar, from Alfred 
the Liberator to Charles the Tyrant, from Charles Martel who saved, to Louis 
Capet who squandered Christendom, from Oliver Cromwell to George the 
Third, from George Washingfton to JeflFerson Davis, from Abraham Lincoln to 
Grover Cleveland. At the termination of each oscillation, at the close of each 
epoch, there stands a Demosthenes, a Brutus, a John Hampden, a Mirabeau, a 
Patrick Henry or a John Brown of Kansas. The pendulum of human liberty has 
reached the end of the arc. We are at the conclusion of an epoch. The hour 
has come, the man appeared, the hero has been found. Worthy to stand by 
Demosthenes and Brutus and Hampden and Mirabeau and Henry and Brown 
is this most typical product of our Western civilization. Him I name to you 
for your suffrages for the highest ofHce within the gift of the American 
Republic — William J. Bryan of Nebraska. 

The nomination was seconded by Hon. L. C. Pace of Nebraska, 
Messrs. McGinley of Michigan, Basher of Iowa, Turner of Ohio, Baker 
of California, Wedderburn of Virginia, Doniphan of Missouri, Mc- 
Bride of Washington, Towne of Minnesota, Clarno of Oregon, and 
Mrs. Stansberry of Colorado. No other name being placed before the 
convention, the nomination was made by acclamation. 

The convention then proceeded to the nomination of a candidate for 
Vice-President, but no speeches were delivered. Mr. Alexander 
Troop, of Connecticut, presented the name of Hon. Arthur Sewall, of 
Maine; the nomination was seconded by Mr. H. T. Niles, of Ohio. 
Mr. Sewall was made the nominee by acclamation. 

In mentioning those who participated in the Silver Convention, I 
have been compelled to rely upon newspaper accounts of the conven- 
tion and, therefore, much to my regret, have been sometimes unable 
to give the initials of persons referred to. 



THE Populist National Convention met in St. Louis on the 22cl 
of July, 1896. As in the case of the convention of the Na- 
tional Silver party, I am compelled to rely upon the news- 
paper reports, and, therefore, am unable to give the full names of all 
to whom I refer as taking part in the proceedings. Senator Marion 
Butler, of North Carolina, one of the recognized leaders of the Populist 
party, was elected temporary chairman, and, in taking the chair, said: 

Mr. Btstler's Speedu 

Fellow Citizens: All history teaches that there come great crises in the 
affairs of men, and all history teaches that humanity is blest and raised to a 
high level or temporarily cursed, according as the men upon whose shoulders 
rest the responsibility are able to meet the crisis with wisdom and patriotism 
and to use it for the betterment of humanity. Two political parties have held 
national conventions this year. Both have had their say, made their promises, 
and put forward their leaders. 

Another political party, young, but a growing giant in strength, has 
assembled to speak to the American people at this important and critical hour. 

We are here because there is need for us to be here. The two parties that 
have already spoken have between them had charge of the machinery of a great 
representative government, in which kind of government there are the greatest 
possibilities for good and for evil — the kind of government where the pros- 
perity of the people or their misery can be affected to the greatest degree. 
The two parties have between them had charge of your government for over 
twenty-five years, and during that time a great and prosperous people, a people 
laboring to carry out the injunction to make two blades of grass grow where 
one grew before, have performed their duty in the eyes of God and man, and 
have made this country blossom like a rose, as far as creating wealth was con- 
cerned, yet during this time of unexampled creation of wealth, of unexampled 
industry and economy on the part of the people, these two parties have suc- 
ceeded in bringing this great nation to the verge of ruin. 

Did they know better, or did they not know better? Were they honestly 
mistaken, or did they do it on purpose? In either event their leadership is a 
discredit to the existence of the party and the necessity of this organization 
is proven. Every candidate put before the American people since the war by 
both of these parties has been a man whose nomination and election has car- 
ried joy to the hearts of aggregated capital and combined greed. They have 
selected the men who have stood in touch with, and been the allied agents of, 



the powers that have brought this country to the verge of bankruptcy, and these 
powers, which have destroyed every republic in the past, will destroy this one 
unless checked. My friends, these two great parties, under false leadership, 
have during this period succeeded in keeping from the people the greatest issue 
in American politics; they have managed to array the great masses of the 
American voters with frenzied zeal on two sides of great national campaigns, 
when the issue was a sham put up for the purpose of dividing the people. It 
made no difference which side won, the people lost. 

Wall street in the United States and Lombard street in England won. 
While these things were going on the great American heart was wrapped in 
party prejudice. It was not until they had awakened from this condition 
and aroused themselves that they began to think upon these questions. Then 
it was that the great middle classes began to put their heads together for 
their common good; and when that small cloud appeared upon the horizon, 
the hearts of the people of the country went forth, and the light of this 
doctrine spread throughout the land. It was at that time that God raised up a 
Moses to lead us out of the land of darkness. It was then that Col. 
L. L. Polk came to the rescue, and with that foresight and wisdom that seem 
to have been prompted by Providence, he foresaw that unless sectional 
feeling engendered by the issues of the war could be allayed, no progress 
could be made. He foresaw that as long as the people were arrayed against 
each other by passion and prejudice, so long would the enemies of mankind 
combine to use the ' great weapon of sectional prejudices to the detriment 
of the people and destroy their prosperity and property. Then it was that 
that grand patriot left his home and gave his life to his country. Then it 
was that he went with a message to the north and to the east and to the 
west; then it was that he came back to the south with a message from our 
northern friends. 

At this hour there stands at Raleigh an enduring monument; and the 
proudest inscription to be put on that monument will be, *'Here lies the man 
who broke down Mason and Dixon's line." 

My friends, the minute that all bitterness is laid aside and the hearts of the 
people beat as one, that very minute the American people begin to act for 
themselves. Then it was that the people who had been trodden into the 
dust and loaded with great burdens knew that their interests were the same 
as the people of the north and the east. That very moment they placed 
themselves upon the same platform of principles founded by Thomas Jefferson 
and Abraham Lincoln. In 1892 we went down to defeat, but our principles 
grew and flourished because they could not be trampled down. They were 
eternal; they were right, and from that hour to this they have continued to 
grow throughout this broad land. 

A few weeks ago the great Republican party met in this city. The poli- 
ticians again wanted to straddle the great issue that was before the 
people but the* People's party had exposed the straddling treachery. The 
logic of events caused them to express themselves clearly upon the ques- 
tion of the day, and consequently they went over, bag and baggage, to the 
great money kings of Wall street and of Europe. 

A few weeks after that there came another evidence of this great move- 


ment The great Democratic party met in Chicago and was forced there to 
take a position, for they could not evade the issue longer; they were frightened; 
they were so alarmed, and some of them, no doubt, so conscience-stricken, 
that they formally decided to deliberately commit petty and grand larceny by 
stealing the People's party platform almost entire. They almost tried to get 
into our party. I am reminded of the old fellow who had his Bible stolen. He 
said: "Faith, and I hope it will cure the disease." 

My friends, I hope it will cure the disease. My only surprise is that 
when they were stealing, they did not steal all the platform. If they had been 
frightened a little worse, I think they would. By the time this money ques- 
tion is settled and before, too, if we don't hurry up, the great transportation 
question — that great question which stands side by side with the money ques- 
tion — will be upon you. 

A delegate: "What will they do with the transportation question?" 

Senator Butler: "They will straddle it." 

My friends, the great transportation question with the great financial 
question, are the two questions that must be solved before you can ever destroy 
these trusts and combines. The Standard Oil Trust could not exist in this 
land if it were not for its co-partnership with the transportation companies of 
the United States. The old parties of trusts and combines must turn their 
eyes to the thing that produces trusts and combines. When they do that, then 
they will strike the tap root of all the evil that has afflicted them — the evils 
of finance and transportation. 

My friends, by the time you get this great financial question settled, this 
transportation question will be a burning question — a question as demoralizing 
to the old parties and as potent in awakening the American people to their 
condition as the great financial question has been; and if it had been as strong 
in the hearts of the people, the Democratic party would have declared for it in 
its convention. The People's party came into existence to perform a great 
mission. There was a necessity for it, and it is going to stay here as 
long as there is any necessity for it. 

As long as the American people need an organization that is true, and 
one that will stand by them under all circumstances and give them the 
rights to which they are entitled, this party will continue to exist. If the 
People's party were to go out of existence tomorrow, the next Democratic 
National Convention would repudiate the platform it recently adopted at Chi- 
cago, and Mr. Bryan would stand no more chance four years hence of being 
nominated by that party than Thomas Jefferson would if he were alive. 

Now, my friends, we have done a good deal. No young party has ever 
accomplished so much in the same length of time as we have done. We 
have endured the bitterness of denunciation and the abuse and malignity of 
party feeling. Right here comes upon us the greatest responsibility that 
has ever rested upon any party. We have raised an issue so universal, so 
great, so important, that we have split both of the old parties in two. Now 
we have either to save that issue or to renounce what we have gained and 
lay it down in defeat. No greater responsibility ever rested upon any con- 

Fellow citizens, shall it ever be said — remember we are making history, 


and prosperity or misery — shall it ever be said in the future that this great band of 
patriots who have had the nerve and the courage to leave the parties of a 
lifetime — this great band of patriots who have broken every tie that bound 
us and our fathers and our grandfathers in political organization — shall it 
ever be said that, after we have forced this issue to the front, we at this trying 
and critical hour shall ourselves be controlled more by party prejudice than 
by patriotism? 

The only way to build up this party is by appealing to the best element 
of the old parties and appealing to their patriotism by telling them that this 
issue is greater than party. That is the only way we have ever taken a single 
man out of the old parties who was worth having. And it is the only way we 
shall ever take any man out of them in the future who is worth having. In this 
solemn hour let us drop the bitter feelings that may have been engendered 
since we came here. Let us stop believing that in one small head all wisdom 
and patriotism are contained. I have seen since I have been here one set 
of patriots going to one extreme, almost, it seemed, with more enthusiasm 
and madness than with reason. I have seen another set of patriots equally 
honest, equally devoted to truth and right, equally desirous of seeing the great- 
est good done for the greatest number, going to the opposite extreme. I have 
seen one extreme impugn the motives of the other, and the other extreme return 
the compliment. I have even heard a few thoughtless men charge that Hanna 
was running one, and others charge that the Democracy was running the 
other, My friends, I have seen enough faith in the faces before me, and 
enough faith in the God above me, to believe that this convention will not 
turn itself into a Democratic annex. I have too much faith in its patriotism 
and in its sense to believe that it will turn itself into a Republican annex. 
There is your danger. There stands one danger and here stands another, and 
one is as big as the other. It has been a part of my experience that, whenever 
you see some good men going to one extreme and other good men going 
to the other extreme, the path of truth lies between them. At this hour 
we need a Benjamin Franklin to rise over this body as he did when the war- 
ring factions were framing our Constitution. This great patriot and Christian 
arose when the crisis had come, and, raising his hand, said: "Let us all fol- 
low in prayer." 

A great stillness came over the meeting, they prayed, asking for inspiration 
and wisdom from on high, and from that hour on history tells us that that great 
convention ceased to wrangle, and became a deliberative body, and every man 
reasoned and had patience with his brother. It was that seeming grace that 
gave us our great Constitution. And if this convention today rises to the 
height of patriotism that is necessary to save this country, it must be con- 
trolled by the same feeling and with the same inspiration from on high. 

At this point Delegate Doggett, of California, cried out, "Nominate a Pop- 
ulist, without any reference to what the other parties have done heretofore." 

My friend, there, has an honest belief. I am mighty apt to hear from 
another man over here on the other side if I wait a little. Both think they are 
right. But if this party lives (and God grant that it shall never die) and rises 
to the mission that it was born to accomplish, it must at this critical hour have 
the patriotism, the unselfishness of party pride to do just what we have been 



preaching for the last four years. If this convention won't follow its own 
teachings, it is unworthy to represent the people at home. 

We have two extremes here, but it won't do to ruin this convention. We 
have to reason. What must we do? It is proper and right; it is fitting for a 
great party that had its birth on the broad cornfields and cottonfields of the 
South and the broad wheatfields of the West to have the wisdom and the 
patriotism to winnow the chaflf from the wheat. What should we do? (A 
voice, "Nominate Bryan.") 

My friends, wc arc told that whom the Gods would destroy they first make 
mad. I want to counsel our good and enthusiastic friends that every time 
they shout out here and interrupt, they are hurting our cause. This conven- 
tion is not going to be ruled by any wild sentiment by either side, I believe. 
This convention has not been crushed by the other parties and it will not 
be stampeded by the moon. What is our duty? It is to indorse and approve 
what is right and condemn what is wrong. Any other course is not true Popu- 
lism. The mission of the People's party has been to strike out what is wrong 
and to uphold what is right. And we have appealed to patriotism to rise above 
the party to do this and our appeal has brought forth two millions of patriots, 
and there are two million more patriots coming swooping into our camp. 
Listen, and I will tell you what you will find when you get home. I have 
been down on the old plantation at home where I was raised; I lived with 
a band of farmers representing all three political parties, and they were at the 
train and shook my hand when I left. The way those men felt is about the 
way the great American heart feels today. They said: "Butler, let us rise to 
that patriotic position that will make us have the confidence and respect of 
every honest man in the old parties." 

If ever we gain another vote, we must gain it by being consistent now. 
One man who is a Populist said: "Butler, I will never go back to the Dem- 
ocratic party. I have no confidence in its leaders. I am willing to acknowl- 
edge what good they do, as far as they go, but no further." A Republican said 
to me: "I have been taught to hate the Democratic party. I have been 
taught to believe that the Republican party contained all the patriotism and 
unselfishness in the country, and at this hour I stand free and foot-loose, 
ready to obey the dictates of conscience and to lead in the way that will bring 
the best American victory to the American people." Now, my friends, if this 
is not Populism, if this is not the doctrine that you have taught in your home 
and in your township and in your county to build up the People's party, then 
your Populists are not like those in my section. The doctrine I am now 
preaching is the doctrine we built the party on, and I tell you today if you waver 
from your position of consistency, from this high patriotic position your 
party is built on, you talk no better than the old parties that you rose up to 

There is not a man in this hall who, if he will go to his room tonight and 
get down on his knees, and pray to Almighty God to take all the prejudice and 
all the partisan feeling out of his heart, and ask His aid to do as a true Populist 
ought to do, but will rise saying: "It is my duty to stand by what I have 
taught in the past and let it lead where it may." 

My friends, there is not a man in the People's party that loves it more 


and has more cause to be revenged against the old parties than I. There is 
danger of those patriotic enough to leave the old parties becoming prejudiced 
to such an extent as to be controlled by their feelings instead of their hearts and 
reasons. I believe that this convention is going to do what is wisest. I believe 
it IS going to stand together. It is not going to split. How can it? We split 
both of the old parties and we split them on a principle. We cannot split, 
because we all stand for the same principles. And of course a party that has 
raised up a great principle and split the two old parties is not going to be fool- 
ish enough to allow itself to split on method and detail. We will stand 
together. We will go home from here a united band of brothers. We will 
strip our coats for the fray and see the millions of organized capital and gold 
monopoly stricken down in this country. We will do more than that We 
will show you that this young giant, the People's party, comes out of that 
campaign stronger than it went into it. Mark you, the old parties will make 
mistakes in the future as they have in the past. This party is going to stand 
ready to hit them and take in their honest men at every mistake they make. 
We are willing to approve everything right they do, and we will condemn 
them when they blunder, or when they betray us as they have in the past. Re- 
member that you are People's party men; that you have accomplishd more 
in four years than the old parties have accomplished in a hundred. Remember 
that if we do our duty at this hour, the time is not far distant when we will be 
the majority party in America. 

The convention chose for its permanent chairman Hon. William 
V. Allen, of Nebraska, who obtained national prominence soon after 
his election to the Senate by a very able speech of fourteen and three- 
quarters hours' duration in opposition to the unconstitutional repeal 
of the Sherman law. He addressed the convention at considerable 
length; his remarks are, in part, reproduced below: 

Mr« Allen^s Speech* 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: I beg leave to return 
my thanks for this distinguished mark of confidence and esteem. I assure you 
that when I came here, and to within a few moments ago, I had no intention 
of doing more than performing my duty as a member of the delegation from 
Nebraska. I would greatly prefer to discharge the duties of a delegate from 
that splendid commonwealth, than to occupy this position, distinguished and 
honorable as it is. But it was thought proper, by a portion of the delegates 
present, that my name should be presented as your presiding ofHcer and per- 
haps it was an evil moment when I consented that it might be used. If I shall 
be able, in the discharge of the duties incumbent on me as your permanent pre- 
siding officer, to satisfy you as well and discharge the duties of the position 
as impartially as your temporary chairman has, I shall be satisfied with myself, 
and I feel confident you will be satisfied with me. 

On occasions like this it is supposed that the presiding officer will outline 
the views of the party he represents, respecting the principles and policy it 
should adopt, and then a speech of acceptance is prepared a week or more 


in advance, and spoken as though improntptu. If you had notified me lome 
time ago of your purpose to make me permanent chairman of the conven- 
tion, I assure you I would have had a fair impromptu speech prepared for 
the occasion, but you were not kind enough to do that and I am compelled to 
rely on the promptings of the moment for what I may say. 

Let it be understood that we are all Populists. If any delegate in this con- 
vention has a lingering suspicion in his mind that the delegates here are not 
Populists, let him, in a spirit of charity, and in vindication of the truth, 
abandon it. 

I read in one of the local papers that the Populist convention is in this 
great metropolis of the Mississippi Valley, preparing to die. I have no doubt 
the expression was prompted by a desire on the part of the British gold power 
and its representatives on the Republican ticket that the party will perish from 
the (ace of the earth, but if the editor of that paper is in the convention tonight 
and has witnessed these extremes of enthusiasm, these soul-stirring scenes 
of patriotism, I beg him to modify his opinion respecting the destiny of this 
great political organization. 

In the Populist party we know no section. We know no North, no South, 
no East, no West. The man who lives on the Gulf or in Florida is as sacred to 
us as those who live on the borders of the British possessions. The man who 
dwells on the Atlantic is loved by the Populists (if he be a true man and a true 
patriot) as much as the citizen who dwells on the shores of the Pacific 

I thank God it was a part of the mission of this great political party of the 
people to destroy sectionalism, and as a citizen of Northern birth and raising. 
I will say in this great presence that I have as profound a respect for the 
rights and citizenship of the man who dwells in the South as I have for my own 
or for my neighbors'. 

The old political parties have been divided on Mason and Dixon's line. 
Our fellow citizens north have been told that all that was required for the 
destruction of the Union was to permit their brethren south of that line to 
come into possession of the Government, and the same thing, in substance, was 
asserted in the Southern sections of our country, and during this time, while 
we were following the banner of the Republican party on the one hand and that 
of Bourbon Democracy on the other, the gold power of the world, represented 
by its agents in the United States, was fastening the chains of an industrial 
slavery on the people so firmly that it will take a generation to strike them oR. 
It was a part of the mission of the Populist party to free the people from the 
sectional prejudice with which they had become thoroughly imbued, and now 
we can meet in a great convention like this, representing (orty-five States and 
the various Territories of the Union, struggling and contending among our- 
selves, in a friendly way, (or the mastery, but when the majority shall have 
spoken, we will bow to its will with a determination to carry it into execution 
at the polls. 

If any one has come here, or occupies these galleries, suspecting that there 
will be a bolt, let me say to him that he will be mistaken. When every repre- 
sentative and every Stale and Territory shall be heard, and the result be known 
and dispassionately considered, I am satisfied 1 can say for my friends httm, 


Texas and Maine that they will bow to the will of the convention as expressed 
by the 'majority on this floor. I do not doubt that in Wall street at this 
moment there is strong hope that the convention will split and that the 
party will be disrupted and absorbed by the Republican party, because that is 
the party that will be supported by Wall street this fall. 

Doubtless there are in this building at this moment the minions of Wall 
street They have been in the hotels at night clothed in the badges of dele- 
gates, and with a lie upon their lips, saying they are delegates to this convention 
representing some State or Territory. They are not delegates. They were and 
are the purchased chattels of the British gold power; they are the minions and 
servile tools of that power that has enslaved the people for a quarter of a 
century, that would fasten the chains of industrial servitude on us so strongly 
that we could not force them from our limbs; they are not Populists. But 
we have been able to discover these creatures. The good sense, the patriotism, 
the good judgment and the honesty of delegates have induced them to dis- 
cover and avoid all persons of this kind, and when this convention shall speak 
and put a ticket in the field, tha£ is to achieve victory in November, these 
creatures, who prowl like jackals in a graveyard, will go back to their dens, 
without the fruits of victory, from their mission to St. Louis. 

It has been a common expression of our enemies, that the Populist party is 
a party of anarchists. We have read it in the public press, in that part of the 
press which has a gold collar around its neck, with a chain attached to it held 
by the Rothschilds and their agents. We have heard it on the lips of ignorant 
partisans. We hear it among men who vote the Republican ticket for no other 
reason than that their fathers voted it a quarter of a century ago. When I first 
entered Congress it was quite a common thing for the opposition to speak of 
the Populist party as anarchists, but it is not so popular now. As I under- 
stand Populism and Populistic principles, they mean a just, intelligent and en- 
lightened Government, where security is found for persons and property — a 
Government where every man, woman and child can stand beneath the folds 
of the American flag and know that their rights are fully protected in their 
entirety. If any man has come here who wants to destroy the Government 
property, or who is an enemy to social order, or who opposes wealth in the 
hands of those who have acquired it by honest means, he will not find a 
welcome. The Populist party has no place for him. It is not so common now 
as it used to be, to hear this talk of anarchists and revolutionists. The other 
political parties are beginning to recognize the inevitable. In the Senate, where 
we have the balance of power, these epithets are no longer heard, and in those 
States where we have the balance of power and can bring defeat or victory by 
our votes we are no longer assailed by opprobrious epithets, but are addressed 
in courteous language and are frequently asked: "What will our Populist 
friends have? What do they think of this or that question?*' 

As we have the balance of power in the Senate and have forced from that 
body respectful treatment, we may as well possess the balance of power be- 
tween the Democratic and Republican party in the nation. This consummation 
lies within our reach. Now, what course shall we pursue, and what shall be 
done? I see here in the convention several banners on which are the words: 
"Keep in the middle of the road." I not only want to keep in the middle of 


the road— I not only want the Populist party to keep in the middle of the 
road — but I want it to take all the road and force all other parties out. We must 
not get into that stupid attitude where we are willing to stand so closely in the 
middle of the road that others will pass us in the race for success. 

No one has thus far defined the "middle of the road." We inscribe it on 
our banners and yet if you will ask a man for a definition no two will agree. As 
I understand "middle of the road/' it means that the old party methods of 
corruption, fraud and ballot-box stuffing, which have been resorted to in secur- 
ing elections, must be abandoned and a course that is pure, that is lofty, 
patriotic and just shall be adopted. That is "the middle of the road," as I 
understand it. We will require the exercise of much good sense in our delibera- 
tions. We must use common sense in the transaction of our political business, 
just as a successful business man must apply it in his daily affairs. If we fail to 
do so, we cannot succeed. Common sense, business judgment and business 
methods must be applied in politics, as in other successful undertakings. 

Wc have presented to us an anomalous condition. The Republican party 
has declared, throughout its history, in favor ctf bimetallism. In 1888 it con- 
demned the Democratic party for an attempt to demonetize silver. In 1892 it 
declared itself in favor of bimetallism and free coinage of gold and silver and 
primary money on terms of equality. In 1896 it surrendered its existence, its 
manhood and all the glory of its history, to the control and keeping of the 
British gold power and abandoned bimetallism; notwithstanding gold and silver 
are and have been money of the Constitution from the formation of the 
Government; notwithstanding the fathers recognized them as money metals: 
notwithstanding they had been coined for eighty-one years of our national exist- 
ence before demonetization; notwithstanding the Republican party had declared 
in favor of bimetallism from the earliest period up to this year. The last conven- 
tion of that party surrendered complete control of its organization to the 
British gold power, and now we are brazenly told that we must take the single 
gold standard, whether we will or not; that we must take it at its abnormal value 
of 200 per cent.; take it with all the evil consequences of falling prices, enforced 
idleness and misery among the people. We are told that we must take it 
because the holders of American securities require their pay in "honest money." 
Who is the chief representative of that great power on this continent? The man 
who declared in Congress in favor of bimetallism repeatedly; a modern Na- 
poleon, whose sole resemblance to the real Napoleon we have read of and ad- 
mired is in the hat he wears. This is the man who declares that silver shall 
no longer be money of the Constitution. True, he has declared that the de- 
monetization of silver is unjust and that it brought want and misery to the 
people, and yet, because the Presidency was ofTcred him at the hands of the 
money power, he has recently told us that the only sound money in this 
country is gold! 

My friends, they tell us that McKinley's nomination was produced by 
spontaneous patriotism that showed itself in the convention that presented his 
name to the country. They want us to believe that the people arose en masse 
and demanded his nomination. Did the farmers and laboring men want his 
nomination? We have been told that the laboring men and the bankers agreed 
on that occasion. They tell us that McKinley*s nomination was the result of 


a spontaneous uprising throughout the continent. Does anybody doubt that 
the gold gamblers and brokers of Wall street and Lombard street and the high 
protectionists raised one million dollars ormore to secure his nomination? The 
enthusiasm that was shown on that occasion was a purchased enthusiasm and 
not spontaneous. The g^eat Napoleon of France; the brilliant son of Corsica, 
who dazzled the world with his military genius and threatened to change the 
map of Europe, made a fatal mistake. He made a mistake when he left the 
province of France and went south of the Pyrenees into the provinces of Spain 
and he made another mistake when he invaded Russia and was driven from 
Moscow, with his army broken, if not absolutely destroyed. What is to become 
of the simulated Napoleon; the Napoleon of Canton? He has made two 
mistakes that are greater and more fatal than the mistakes of the real Napoleon. 
When he declared that the only way prosperity can come to the people is by 
doubling taxation on the articles that they consume, it was a mistake. Accord- 
ing to the logic of the modern Napoleon, when you are carrying a burden the 
way to lighten it is to increase it, and when you are paying an average tariff 
tax of $3.00 a head, the way to lighten it is to decrease the volume of money 
and double the volume of taxation. He made another mistake when he told 
the country that the real road to prosperity lies in a shrinking volume of money 
and the establishment of the single gold standard as a permanent policy — that 
was a mistake. The genuine Napoleon who challenges admiration, notwith- 
standing his nitstakes, made one that cost him his lifCi It cost him the crown 
of France; it cost him all the crowns of Europe, I might say. That was the 
mistake made at Waterloo when he met Wellington and the allied forces. 
Wellington had fought but few battles up to that time. He was comparatively 
unknown. He had not dazzled the world with genius, but at Waterloo, the 
obscure man who subsequently became the "Iron Duke" of England, met and 
overthrew the genuine Napoleon, who was banished to St. Helena and there 
held a prisoner, losing his life in solitude. 

Somewhere in this broad land today, either in the East or in the South, in 
the North, or on the great plains of the Northwest, will be found a Wellington 
that will overcome and overthrow the modern Napoleon in November next, and 
that will be an occasion of great rejoicing among the common people. 

I realize that the party stands now at the most critical period of its history. 
Shall it live? Shall it continue to advocate the great principles of Populism that 
are as eternal as the rock-ribbed earth and as ancient as the sun? Shall the 
party continue to exist for the protection of the American home, not only the 
home found in the palace, but the home found in the hovel as well? Shall 
the great party that recognizes no distinction between men and women, under 
a just system of government survive? Shall it, in its second national conven- 
tion be destroyed, or shall it continue to stand as a beacon light of the liberty- 
loving people throughout the globe? My fellow citizens, it must live. It shall 
live! We will promulgate a platform and it will be a platform that will embody 
the best Populistic thought of the country. We have made mistakes before, but 
they will be corrected, and w^e will declare to the world that on that platform we 
must succeed. We will place on the platform as candidates for President and 
Vice-President, men who will accept its principles, and we will succeed. 

There are those who desire us to promulgate a wild platform that will 


be the subject of ridicule. They want us to take some man as a candidate for 
President, who is unlit and unacceptable and who is willing to run, with certain 
defeat staring him in the face, for the mere empty honor of being a candidate, 
and they will cry to him to "keep in the middle of the road," but they are our 
enemies, and not our friends. 

This convention, my friends, will follow its deliberate judgment; its cool 
judgment, and will not be influenced by passion. This is no time for mere 
sentiment and no time to give way to passion. He who is moved by passion, 
is a failure in life. The man who is controlled by high intellect and a keen 
sense of duty, is the one who succeeds. This convention will place in nomina- 
tion a Presidential candidate and a Vice-Presidential candidate, and it is for you 
and not for me to say who they shall be. As your presiding officer it is my 
duty io recognize the rights of every one with absolute impartiality, and that 
will be done as far as I am capable of doing it, but let me appeal to you as one 
who sees the homes of his country in peril; as one who sees the homes of the 
farmers and laborers passing into the hands of landlords by thousands; as one 
who foresees the time coming not far distant, unless there shall be a change, 
when there will be a few landlords and many peasants. Let me appeal to you 
not to suffer sentiment to move you contrary to the interests of your country, 
your family and your God. Take into account, and it is highly important, what 
the effect will be of the election in November, if you shall put into the field a 
third ticket. That is a serious matter for you to consider. There is where 
your highest judgment and your greatest patriotism should be exercised. 

I do not doubt that there are those who stand in the lobbies at this time, 
who pray, if they pray at all, that something will happen to this convention, by 
which it will make a mistake. Take into account, and weigh well, whether we 
shall unite the reform forces of our country against plutocracy. Do you want 
McKinley? Do you want $263,000,000 more of gold bonds in a time of profound 
peace? Is it not suspicious when you see the great and good Deacon Dana 
and Herr Most standing side by side on a gold platform? Is it not suspicious 
when His Excellency, the President, says that on the result of this convention 
he will or will not become a candidate for a third term? Is it not suspicious 
when the chief magistrate of 71,000,000 people causes a letter to be written 
from the money centers of the country, to the farmers of the South and West, 
threatening that if they fail to vote for the gold standard, their money supply will 
be taken from them? Are you not suspicious of a man, who, but a few years 
ago, declared that gold and silver were money of equal value, and yet who is 
today the outspoken champion of the single gold standard and accepts the 
Presidential nomination on a platform declaring that doctrine. 

Do you want McKinley, and Government bonds and national bank issues, 
and high taxation, and a government by injunction? Do you want any or all 
of these, or would you rather have an enlarged volume of money and greater 
prosperity? Are you in favor of an income tax, or would you rather have the 
chief executive appoint a few more Shirases to the Supreme Court to declare 
the income tax unconstitutional, or do you want a President who is in favor 
of lightening the burdens of the people? A man that is in favor of Government 
ownership of railroads and telegraphs? If you were compelled to take your 
choice between men advocating these different principles of government, which 


would you take? I am not here advocating Mr. Bryan's nomination. Do not 
misunderstand me that I am advocating a specific choice for you to make. It 
is for you to choose and not for me. If by putting a third ticket in the field 
you would defeat free coinage ; defeat a withdrawal of the issue power of national 
banks; defeat Government ownership of railroads, telephones and telegraphs; 
defeat an income tax and foist gold monometallism and high taxation upon the 
people for a generation to come, which would you do? It is for you to choose 
and not for me, but you should choose wisely, as doubtless you will. 

When I shall go back to the splendid commonwealth that has so signally 
honored me beyond my merits, I want to be able to say to the people that all 
the great doctrines we have advocated for years, have been made possible by 
your action. I do not want them to say to me that the Populists have been 
advocates of reforms when they could not be accomplished, but when the first 
ray of light appeared and the people were looking with expectancy and with 
anxiety for relief, the party was not equal to the occasion; that it was stupid; 
it was blind; it kept "in the middle of the road," and missed the golden oppor- 
tunity. Invoking your considerate judgment and again thanking you for the 
honor conferred on me, I await your pleasure. 

In view of the contest over the second position, it was decided to 
nominate the candidate for Vice-President first. The roll of the States 
was called for nominations, and Congressman M. W. Howard, of Ala- 
bama, presented the name of Hon. Thomas E. Watson, of Georgia, 
in the following speech: 

Mr. Howard^s Speech* 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: We have often seen the 
storm clouds gather and rise above the horizon; we have heard the thunders 
roll and seen the lightning flash, and then the silver drops began to 
fall on the earth, and after a while the storm would roll away, and the rainbow 
of promise would come out in the sky. Today, and during this convention, we 
may have had some stormy scenes, my friends, but I am glad that the lightning 
flashes have been harmless, as they have fallen upon the crested helmets of the 
true knights of the People's party, and now I am glad that the storm has all 
passed away, and that the rainbow of promise spans the American continent. 
My friends, another storm cloud has gathered, and a man has come forward 
in our dire extremity to lead the people out of bondage into the land of freedom. 
I am glad today, my friends, that he has been nominated, and I see a disposition 
here that we will stand by this party and protect it. 

My friends, the grand old ship of the People's party will sail on until it will 
reach the harbor of safety. I want now the privilege of naming a man who 
will be one of the pilots on board of this ship of the People's party, and who 
will steer into the harbor of safety. He is a man who has suflfered in the cause; 
a man who has sacrificed his money and his time for its good; a man who has 
borne the cross and who should wear the crown; a man who has been the 
friend of his fellow-men and who is known throughout the State of Georgia and 
throughout the land as a true friend of his fellow-men. 


I nominate for the office of Vice-President of the United States Thomas E. 
Watson of Georgia. 

The nomination was seconded by Hon. J. R. Sovereign, Hon. 
Jos. A. Johnson of California, Hon. Ignatius Donnelly of Minnesota, 
Hon. Frank Doster of Kansas, Hon. George Abbott of Nebraska, 
Messrs. Murphy of Georgia, Stockwell of Indiana, A. A. Gunby of 
Lx>uisiana, Taylor of Michigan, Walton of Georgia, Sitzes of Ohio, and 
several others whose names I have not been able to secure. 

Hon. Arthur Sewall was placed in nomination by ex-Congressman 
Lafe Pence, of New York, and the nomination was seconded by Hon. 
Thomas Patterson of Colorado, Senator William M. Stewart of Ne- 
vada, Messrs. W. A. Harris of Kansas, Fogg of Michigan, Donovan 
of Montana, and Rev. E. Kent of the District of Columbia. 

Hon. A. M. Mimms, of Tennessee, was placed in nomination by 
Captain Burnham, of Tennessee, and the nomination was seconded 
by Mr. Miller, of Illinois. 

Congressman Harry Skinner, of North Carolina, was placed in 
nomination by Col. Bowman, of New York, and the nomination was 
seconded by Mr. Guthrie of North Carolina, and Mr. Rogers of Cali- 

Mr. L. H. Weller, of Iowa, presented the name of Hon. Frank 
Burkett, of Mississippi, and the nomination was seconded by Mr. 
Gore of Mississippi, and Mr. Reeves of Montana. 

Prof. L. C. Bateman, of Maine, presented to the convention the 
name of Hon. Mann Page, of Virginia, and the nomination was sec- 
onded by Gen. Field, of Virginia. 

As the roll proceeded it was evident that Mr. Watson was far in the 
lead, and when Mr. Burkett and Mr. Mimms withdrew from the con- 
test, Mr. Watson was nominated by acclamation. 

In deference to the wishes of Mr. Watson, I omit a biographical 
sketch of him. 

On the next day the platform was reported to the convention by 
Gen. James B. Weaver, of Iowa, chairman of the Committee on Reso- 
lutions, and was adopted. I give it in full below: 

PeopIe^s Party Platfonxu 

The People's party, assembled in national convention, reaffirms its allegiance 
to the principles declared by the founders of the Republic, and also to the 
fundamental principles of just government as enunciated in the platform 
of the party in 1892. 

We recognize that through the connivance of the present and preceding 
administrations the country has reached a crisis in its national life as predicted 


in our declarations four years ago, and that prompt and patriotic action is the 
supreme duty of the hour. We realize that while we have political independence 
our financial and industrial independence is yet to be attained, by restoring to 
our country the constitutional control and exercise of the functions necessary 
to a people's government, which functions have been basely surrendered by 
our public servants to corporate monopolies. The influence of European money 
changers has been more potent in shapmg legislation than the voice of th^ 
American people. Executive power and patronage have been used to corrupt 
our Legislatures and defeat the will of the people, and plutocracy has been 
enthroned upon the ruins of democracy. To restore the Government intended 
by the fathers and for the welfare and prosperity of this and future generations, 
we demand the establishment of an economic and financial system which shall 
make us masters of our own affairs, and independent of European control by 
the adoption of the following declaration of principles: 

1. We demand a national money, safe and sound, issued by the general 
Government only, without the intervention of banks of issue, to be a full 
legal tender for all debts, public and private; a just, equitable, and efficient 
means of distribution direct to the people and through the lawful disbursements 
of the Government. 

2. We demand the free and unrestricted coinage of silver and gold at the 
present legal ratio of i6 to i, without waiting for the consent of foreign 

3. We demand that the volume of circulating medium be speedily in- 
creased to an amount sufficient to meet the demands of business and popula- 
tion, and to restore the just level of prices of labor and production. 

4. We denounce the sale of bonds and the increase of the interest-bearing 
debt made by the present administration as unnecessary and without authority 
of law, and demand that no more bonds be issued except by specific act of 

5. We demand such legislation as will prevent the demonetization of the 
lawful money of the United States by private contract. 

6. We demand that the Government, in payment of its obligations, shall 
use its option as to the kind of lawful money in which they are to be paid, 
and we denounce the present and preceding administrations for surrendering 
this option to the holders of Government obligations. 

7. We demand a graduated income tax to the end that aggregated wealth 
shall bear its just proportion of taxation, and we regard the recent decision of 
the Supreme Court relative to the income tax law as a misinterpretation of the 
Constitution and an invasion of the rightful powers of Congress over the 
subject of taxation. 

8. We demand that postal savings banks be established by the Govern- 
ment for the safe deposit of the savings of the people and to facilitate exchange. 

I. Transportation being a means of exchange and a public necessity, the 
Government should own and operate the railroads in the interest of the people 
and on a non-partisan basis, to the end that all may be accorded the same 
treatment in transportation, and that the tyranny and political power now exer- 
cised by the great railroad corporations, which result in the impairment, if 
not the destruction, of the political rights and personal liberties of the citizen. 




may be destroyed. Such ownership is to be accomplished gradually, in a 
manner consistent with sound public policy. 

2. The interest of the United States in the public highways, built with 
public moneys, and the proceeds of extensive grants of land to the Pacific 
railroads should never be alienated, mortgaged or sold, but guarded and pro- 
tected for the general welfare as provided by the laws organizing such rail- 
roads. The foreclosure of existing liens of the United States on these roads 
should at once follow default in the payment thereof by the debtor, the com- 
panies, and at the foreclosure sales of said roads the Government shall purchase 
the same if it become necessary to protect its interest therein, or if they can 
be purchased at a reasonable price; and the Government shall operate said 
railroads as public highways for the benefit of the whole people, and not in the 
interest of the few, under suitable provisions for protection of life and property, 
giving to all transportation interests equal privileges and equal rates for fares 
and freight. 

3. We denounce the present infamous schemes for refunding these debts, 
and demand that the laws now applicable thereto be executed and administered 
according to their true intent and spirit. 

4. The telegraph, like the postoffice system, being a necessity for the 
transmission of news, should be owned and operated by the Government in 
the interest of the people. 

1. The true policy demands that national and State legislation shall be such 
as will ultimately enable every prudent and industrious citizen to secure a home, 
and therefore the land should not be monopolized for speculative purposes. All 
lands now held by railroads and other corporations jn excess of their actual 
needs should by lawful means be reclaimed by the Government and held for 
actual settlers only, and subject to the right of every human being to acquire 
a home upon the soil; and private land monopoly, as well as alien ownership, 
should be prohibited. 

2. We condemn the frauds by which the land grants to the Pacific railroad 
companies have, through the connivance of the Interior Department, robbed 
multitudes of actual bona fide settlers of their homes and miners of their 
claims, and we demand legislation by Congress which will enforce the exemp- 
tion of mineral land from such grants after, as well as before, patent. 

3. We demand that bona fide settlers on all public lands be granted free 
homes as provided in the national homestead law, and that no exception be 
made in the case of Indian reservations when opened for settlement, and that 
all lands not now patented come under this demand. 

We favor a system of direct legislation through the initiative and referen- 
dum under proper constitutional safeguards. 

1. We demand the election of President, Vice-President, and United States 
Senators by a direct vote of the people. 

2. We tender to the patriotic people of Cuba our deepest sympathy in their 
heroic struggle for political freedom and independence, and we believe the 
time has come when the United States, the great Republic of the world, should 
recognize that Cuba is and of right ought to be a free and independent State. 

3. We favor home rule in the Territories and the District of Columbia, 
and the early admission of Territories as States. 


4. All public salaries should be made to correspond to the price of labor 
and its products. 

5. In times of great industrial depression, idle labor should be employed 
on public works as far as practicable. 

6. The arbitrary course of the courts in assuming to imprison citizens for 
indirect contempt, and ruling by injunction, should be prevented by proper 

7. We favor just pensions for our disabled Union soldiers. 

8. Believing that the elective franchise and an untrammcled ballot are 
essential to a government of, for, and by the people, the People's party condemn 
the wholesale system of disfranchisement adopted in some of the States as un- 
rcpublican and un-democratic, and we declare it to be the duty of the several 
State Legislatures to take such action as will secure a full, free, and fair ballot 
and an honest count. 

9. While the foregoing propositions constitute the platform upon which 
our party stands, and for the vindication of which its organization will be 
maintained, we recognize that the great and pressing issue of the pending cam- 
paign upon which the present Presidential election will turn is the financial 
question, and upon this great and specific issue between the parties we cordially 
invite the aid and co-operation of all organizations and citizens agreeing with 
us upon this vital question. 

The convention then proceeded to the nomination of a candidate 
for the Presidency. My name was placed before the convention by 
Gen. Weaver, who spoke as follows: 

Mr. "^eaver^s Speech* 

Mr. Chairman: I arise before you this morning, facing the most critical 
period that has ever occurred in the history of the Populist party. I know 
that I have in my heart not one aspiration to do anything in this con- 
vention or to say one word in this presence that would militate against the 
growth and strength, security and purpose of the Populist party. I have 
but two aspirations in connection with that party. The first is incorporated 
with my life work. It is to preserve untarnished and unsullied to the Ameri- 
can people the great principles that we have contended for for the last 
twenty years. My second purpose is to preserve the organization for pres- 
ent and future usefulness in every part of this Union. 

You have all read the papers this morning; you have all read the manly 
dispatch from the Democratic nominee for the presidency, William J. Bryan. 
No man could have done less and be a man. His manly attitude concern- 
ing the action of this convention we must all respect. But, my fellow citizens, 
this question has reached a point where neither Mr. Bryan nor his personal 
friends have any right whatever to say what the action of this convention 
shall be. This is a greater question than the personality of its candidates. 

After your action last night, after I had read the telegrams from Mr. 
Bryan, I utterly refused, and I here and now utterly refuse, to confer either 
with Mr. Bryan or Mr. Jones as to who shall be the nominee of this con- 
vention. That is a matter that we have a right to determine for ourselves. 
It is the relief of 70,000,000 people that is at stake. 


I am here to do but one thing and to ask the consideration and the 
attention of this convention to that one thing. I know that I am proceeding 
upon right lines. You know how long I have fought in your behalf; listen 
now to what I have to say. I bore your standard (I know I was unde- 
serving) first, sixteen years ago, in 1880, and twelve years afterward, un- 
solicited, you made me your standard bearer in 1892. I did my best. I 
did all I could do w*ith the means at my command to support our prin- 
ciples among the people. Now I stand here in the crucial juncture of our 
party's history, and I shall proceed to deliver my convictions deliberately. 

In that midnight discussion between Brutus and Cassius concerning the 

contemplated battle at Philippi, Brutus urged that their cause was ripe, 

their legions brimful, at the height, and ready to decline. Said he: 

There is a Ude in the affairs of men, 

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; 

Omitted, all the voyage of their life 

Is bound In shadows and In misery. 

And then, in dramatic climax, he exclaimed: 

On such a full sea are we now afloat, 

And we must take the current when it serTee, 

Or lose our ventures. 

For twenty years we have been pleading with the people to espouse 
the sacred cause which is at stake in this campaign. We have constantly 
urged through good and through evil report that our principles were more 
important than party associations; were above all considerations of private 
fortune or the petty and feverish ambitions of men. We have thus far 
suited our action to our words. Through five presidential campaigns, stretch- 
ing from 1876 to 1892, you correctly estimated the purposes of old party 
managers, and events have sustained every specification in your indictment 
against them. Millions of honest men within old party ranks were deceived, 
lured into ambush and betrayed. But not a single one of your pickets has 
ever been caught napping or been taken by surprise. To your devoted ef- 
forts is largely due the revival of economic learning in this country, which 
has enabled the Democratic party to assume its present admirable attitude. 
Your work now promises much to mankind, and is about to break forth in 
rt)mplete victory for the industrial masses. Though oft repulsed by the mul- 
titude, whom we would have liberated, though crucified in return for our 
kindness, yet through it all we have steadily confided in the righteousness 
of our cause and the final good sense of the people. We still believe 
that this nation has a mission to perform which bad men will not be per- 
mitted to destroy, and recent events indicate that the nineteenth century is 
not, after all, to close with the friends of freedom despondent in the western 

This country has recently witnessed a new Pentecost, and received an- 
other baptism of fire. The recent convention at Chicago sounded a bugle 
call for union which can neither be misunderstood nor go unheeded. In its 
patriotic utterances and action it swept away all middle ground, and opened 
the road to a formidable organic alliance. They not only made union possi- 
ble — thank heaven, they have rendered it inevitable. 


From the very beginning our organization has made party fealty sub- 
ordinate to principle. We will not here reverse ourselves and refuse to accept 
victory now so easily within our reach. We will not refuse the proffered as- 
sistance of at least 3,000,000 free silver Democrats, and not less than 1,000,000 
free silver Republicans, simply because they have shown the good sense to 
come with an organized army fully equipped and manned for battle. Let 
them have their own divisions and army corps. The field of glory is open 
to all competitors who are fighting for the same principles. 

The Populists have already shown their prowess in many engagements 
during twenty years of struggle. If our allies can strike sturdier blows at 
plutocracy than can we; if they can scale the battlements of the gold power 
more gallantly than our old veterans, and are able to plant their colors one 
foot nearer the citadel of the enemy than we can ourselves, let every Populist 
cheer and support them in their heroic work. We will all march under 
the same flag, keep step to the same music, face the same foe, share in, and 
shout over, the same triumph. 

We cannot be mistaken concerning the real issue involved in the struggle 
of the present year. It is between the gold standard, gold bonds and bank 
currency on the one hand, and the bimetallic standard, no bonds, and gov- 
ernment currency on the other. The people are asked to choose between 
enforced idleness, destitution, debt, bankruptcy and despair on the one side, 
and an open iloor of opportunity under just laws and normal conditions 
on the other. The situation presents the mightiest civic question that ever 
convulsed a civilized nation. The conflict can neither be postponed nor 
avoided. In the name of the suffering people, I afHrm that this is no time 
for dissensions or party divisions. The supreme hour for action has ar- 
rived. If we would be victorious we must make common cause with the 
heroic men who dominated the Chicago convention. No other course is 
either prudent or desirable. We are not asked to abandon our party, nor 
would it be wise to do so. If it is to be preserved we will, in my judg- 
ment, be compelled to take the course which I am about to indicate. The 
silver Democrats have lined up as an organization. Now let the Populists, 
free silver Republicans, and the American silver party do likewise. Form 
an embattled square — impenetrable to the assaults of the confederated gold 
power. •* 

After due consideration, in which I have fully canvassed every possible 
phase of the subject, I have failed to find a single good reason to justify us in 
placing a third ticket in the field. The exigencies of the hour imperatively 
demand that there shall be but one. I would not endorse the distinguished 
gentleman named at Chicago. I would nominate him outright, and make 
him our own, and then share justly and rightfully in his election. The 
situation is a striking verification of the old adage that "The path of duty is 
the path of safety." Take this course, and all opposition will practically dis- 
appear in the Southern and Western states, and we can then turn our at- 
tention to other parts of the field. Take any other, and you endanger the 
entire situation and strengthen the arm of our common adversary. 

If you allow the present happy juncture to pass, all the heroic work of 
twenty years will be thrown to the winds. Our guiding hand will disappear 


in the momentous conflict just when it should be stretched forth to steady 
the ark of our covenant. We would prove to the world that we are de- 
void of capacity to grasp great opportunities, and lacking in strength to 
grapple with prodigious emergencies. The people have a gallant champion 
in the field, who is leading a revolt against the plutocracy of Christendom. 
Every oppressor, every plutocrat, in two hemispheres has turned his guns 
upon him. The subsidized organs have openly proclaimed that he must 
be crushed by any means and at whatever cost. The confederated monopolies 
have laid aside their parties and their politics and arc marching in hot haste 
against him. Let us signal to him to hold the fort — that we arc coming — 
and then hasten to his relief. Gentlemen, I want to say to you in all earnest- 
ness, that, assailed as is this gallant knight by the sleuth hounds of the 
money power of the world, you may deliberate here as long as you please, 
but you cannot prevent the people from rushing to the support of their 
recognized defender and leader. If you will not say the word, they will 
break over all restraints and go themselves, leaders or no leaders, and may 
God bless them for so doing. 

Therefore, in obedience to my highest conception of duty, with the 
solemn conviction that I am right, I place in nomination for the presidency 
of the United States a distinguished gentleman, who, let it be remembered, 
has already been three times endorsed by the Populist party of his own 
State — once for Representative in Congress; once for United States Senator, 
and only last week for the Presidency. I name that matchless champion of 
the people, that intrepid foe of corporate greed, that splendid young states- 
man — William J. Bryan, of Nebraska. 

The nomination was seconded by Gen. Field of Virginia, Hons. 
W. H. Claggett of Idaho, H. E. Taubencck of Illinois, Jerry Simpson 
of Kansas, Ignatius Donnelly of Minnesota, and T. V. Cator of Cali- 
fornia, Judges J. K. nines of Georgia, W. L. (}reen of Nebraska, and 
A. J. Plowman of South Dakota, Mrs. Mary E. Lease of Kansas, and 
Messrs. Cobb of Alabama, Brown of Massachusetts, Greece of Michi- 
gan, Smith of Montana. Kitchin of North Carolina, Matthews of New 
York, Sites of Ohio, McDowell of Tennessee, r>everly of Virginia, Mc- 
Guirc of Washington, Brown of Wyoming, Crosby of Missouri. Kent 
of District of Columbia, and others whose names I have not been able 
to ascertain. 

The name of Col. S. F. Norton, of Illinois, was presented to the 
convention by Henry G. Call, of New York, and the nomination was 
seconded by James H. Davis, of Texas, and a delegate from West Vir- 
ginia. Tlie ballot resulted in 1042 for me and 340 for Mr. Norton. 

I may add here that Mr. Norton during the campaign gave active 
support to the fusion electors and spoke in several States. 








/^X cU^^^u.^ ^ A^ 

>! A^OiS^^-^^^. 



I HAVE called special attention to the platforms which demanded 
the opening of the mints of the United States to the free and un- 
limited coinage of silver at i6 to i, without waiting for the aid or 
consent of any other nation, because they mark an epoch in the fight 
for the restoration of bimetallism. 

As soon as the fact of the demonetization of silver by this country 
was discovered, agitation for the restoration of bimetallism began, and 
for years no political party had the temerity to adopt a platform defend- 
ing the favoritism shown to gold by th^ act of 1873, but the financiers, 
by keeping control of at least one branch of the Government, were 


able to prevent the enactment of any free coinage legislation. Fighting 
all the time under cover, they compelled the bimetallists to compromise 
on the Bland- Allison act in 1878, and then began to scheme for the 
repeal of that act. In 1884, the Democrats in National Convention 
said: "We believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of 
the Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into such 
money without loss;" but Mr. Qeveland, after his election and before 
the beginning of his administration, expressed a desire for the sus- 
pension of the Bland-Allison act, and prophesied financial catastrophe 
unless this was done. The silver sentiment was strong enough, how- 
ever, to prevent the carrying out of the President's recommendation. 
In 1888, the Democrats reiterated their declaration of 1884, while the 
Republicans denounced the Democratic administration for its effort 
to demonetize silver. The money question did not, however, enter 
prominently into either the campaign of 1884 or the campaign of 

By 1890, the Senate, which in 1878 was opposed to free silver, had 
become its champion, while the House by this time contained a ma- 
jority against the white metal. The Sherman act was the result of 
another compromise. It was voted for by many advocates of free coin- 
age who believed that it would create a demand for all the surplus 
silver, and thus restore the bullion price to $1.29 per ounce. The 
immediate effect was to raise silver to about $1.20 an ounce, but as 
soon as it became apparent that the law did not absorb all the silver 
upon the market, the price of silver bullion began to decline. 

By 1892, the silver Republicans had commenced to assert them- 
selves, and they succeeded in securing in the Minneapolis platform 
a sentence declaring that "the American people, from tradition and in- 
terest, favor bimetallism." In the Democratic party, also, the silver 
sentiment was growii\g, but the friends of Mr. Cleveland, controlling 
the convention by a large majority, succeeded in evading an express 
declaration in favor of free coinage. The platform read: 

We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the 
country, and to the coinage of both gold and silver without discrimination 
against either metal or charge for coinage. 

There were qualifying words, which in the East were construed to 
support the gold standard, while the words above quoted were em- 
phasized in the West and South. Subsequent events, in my judgment, 
justify the conclusion that Mr. Qeveland was, before his election, per- 
sonally committed to unconditional repeal, although a reasonable con- 



struction of the platform would make the restoration of the coinage 
of gold and silver on equal terms a necessary part of an act repealing 
the Shepnan law. As soon as the election was over, the scheme to 
secure unconditional repeal was put on foot. In fact, an attempt was 
made to secure it during the closing session of the Fifty-second Con- 
gress. After 1892, the well settled terms used in the discussion of the 
silver question began to be distorted. The word "bimetallism" began 
to be used in a sense entirely unknown in previous years. Men 
claimed to be bimetallists, but supported every measure suggested by 
the advocates of the gold standard. In a speech made in Ohio, I think 
in 1895, Senator Sherman used language something like this (I read it 
in the press dispatches at the time and quote from memory) : 

The parity between gold and silver can only be maintained by the use of 
gold as the standard, with silver coined in limited quantities as a limited legal 
tender. This can properly be called bimetallism. 

This definition of bimetallism has, within the last four years, be- 
come quite common among those who favor the gold standard, but are 
not willing to be known as monometallists. Bimetallism means two- 
metallism, just as certainly as the word biped means an ani- 
mal with two feet. It means the use of two metals as stand- 
ard money, and to be standard money they must be treated 
alike. If to use gold as a standard, with silver coined in 
limited quantities as a limited legal tender, is bimetallism, then 
England now has bimetallism. If that system can properly be 
called bimetallism, then the use of copper in limited quantities as 
a limited legal tender along with such a system would constitute tri- 
metallism. It seems to me that the absurdity of Mr. Sherman's defini- 
tion must be apparent to anyone who will give the subject a moment's 
consideration. It was the attempt of the opponents of free coinage 
to misconstrue the terms formerly used, that led to the declaration for 
a specific ratio. Then, too, many insisted upon calling themselves 
bimetallists who were unwilling to vote for bimetallism without an in- 
ternational agreement. This made it necessary to adopt some means 
of distinguishing between independent bimetallists and international 
bimetallists. The Populists, in 1892, declared for free coinage at 16 to i, 
but that declaration was not sufficient in 1896, because there were 
plenty of gold men who would have subscribed to it with the mental 
reservation, "whenever the rest of the world will join with us." 

When the silver Democrats organized for the purpose of capturing 
the National Convention they announced their intention to secure, 




if possible, a platform which would avoid ambiguous words and leave 
nothing for misinterpretation, and therefore the State Conventions 
controlled by the silver Democrats instructed their delegates to vote for 
a plank declaring, in substance, for free coinage, for unlimited coinage, 
for coinage at i6 to i, and for such coinage without waiting for the aid 
or consent of any other nation. This platform spread over the country 
until it became a part of the creed of the silver advocates. The Demo- 
cratic National Convention adopted it, the convention of the National 
Silver party adopted it, and the Populist party adopted it Thus three 
conventions united in this demand for an American financial policy 
for the American people. 

It was several years before the colonists could give effect to their 
Declaration of Independence ; it may be several years before this nation 
can, through actual legislation, assert its financial independence. But, 
in my judgment, the financial independence of the United States is as 
certain to be secured as was political independence. 



THE campaign for the restoration of bimetallism was carried on 
by three National Committees. I give below the name and 
address of each committeeman for the benefit of those who 
may desire to refer to the matter hereafter. 


Chairman, James K. Jones, Washington, Ark.; Secretary, C. A. 
Walsh, Ottumwa, la.; Treasurer, William P. St. John, New York City. 

Campaig^n Committee* 
Daniel J. Campau, Chairman, Detroit, Mich.; John R. McLean, 
Cincinnati, O.; William J. Stone, Jefferson City, Mo.; J. G. Johnson, 
Peabody, Kas.; Thomas Gahan, Chicago, 111.; Clark Howell, Jr., At- 
lanta, Ga.; William A. Clark, Butte, Mont; James Kerr, Clearfield, Pa.; 
Secretary, Frank Hosford, Mich. 

Executive Committee* 
James K. Jones, Chairman; Henry D. Clayton, Eufaula, Ala. 
Thomas C. McRae, Prescott, Ark. ; J. J. Dwycr, San Francisco, Cal. 
Adair Wilson, Durango, Col.; Richard R. Kenncy, Dover, Del. 
Samuel Pasco, Monticello, Fla.; George Ainslie, Boise City, Idaho 
John G. ShankHn, Evansville, Ind. ; C. A. Walsh, Ottumwa, la. ; Urey 
Woodson, Owensboro, Ky.; N. C. Blanchard, Shreveport, La.; Ar- 
thur P. Gorman, Laurel, Md.; D. J. Campau, Detroit, Mich.; Wil- 
liam J. Stone, Jefferson City, Mo.; W. H. Thompson, Grand Island, 
Neb.; James Smith, Jr., Newark, N. J.; Josephus Daniel, Raleigh, 
N. C; William C. Leistikow, Grafton, N. D.; B. R. Tillman, Trenton, 
S. C; James M. Head, Nashville, Tenn.; Peter J. Otey, Lynchburg, 
Va.; E. C. Wall, Milwaukee, Wis.; Marcus A. Smith, Phoenix, Ariz.; 
Lawrence Gardner, Washington, D. C. ; Thomas Marcum, Muscogee, 
I. T. ; Secretary, Thomas O. Towles, Jefferson City, Mo. 

Remaining Membefs of National Committee* 
Alexander Troop, New Haven, Conn.; Seth C. Gordon, Portland, 
Me.; John W. Corcoran, Boston, Mass.; T. D. O'Brien, St. Paul, 



Minn.; W. V. Sullivan, Oxford, Miss.; John J. McHatton, Butte City, 
Mont.; Clayton Belknap, Virginia City, Nev.; True L. Norris, Ports- 
mouth, N. H.; Philip D. Baker, Bridgeton, N. J.; Frank Campbell, 
Bath, N. Y.; I. P. Baker, Bismarck, N. D.; J. H. Townsend, Dallas, 
Ore.; William F. Harrity, Philadelphia, Pa.; Richard B. Comstock, 
Providence, R. I.; James M. Woods, Rapid City, S. D.; James C. 
Dudley, Paris, Tex. ; A. W. McCune, Salt Lake City, Utah. ; Bradley 
B. Smalley, Burlington, Vt.; William H. White, Seattle, Wash.; John 
T. McGraw, Grafton, W. Va.; William H. HolHday, Laramie, Wyo.; 
Charles D. Rogers, Sitka, Alaska; F. A. Manzanaras, East Las Vegas, 
N. M. ; Whit M. Grant, Oklahoma, O. T. 


Chairman, Marion Butler, Raleigh, N. C. ; Secretary, J. A. Edger- 
ton, Lincoln, Neb.; Treasurer, M. C. Rankin, Terre Haute, Ind. 

Executive Gmimittee. 

The chairman, secretary and treasurer, together with J. R. 

Sovereign, Sulphur Springs, Ark.; George F. Washburn, Boston, 

Mass.; John W. Breidenthal, Topeka, Kas.; Dr. C. F. Taylor, 

Philadelphia, Pa. ; H. W. Reed, Brunswick, Ga. ; John S. Dore, Fresno, 


Remaining Members of tbe National G)mmittee* 

R. F. Kolb, Birmingham, Ala.; R. H. Seymor, Livingston, Ala.; 

K. S. Woodruff, Anniston, Ala.; A. W. Files, Little Rock, Ark.; J. 

O. A. Bush, Prescott, Ark.; E. M. Hamilton, Los Angeles, Cal.; 

F. Houghton, Coming, Cal.; John C. Bell, Montrose, Col.; H. S. 

Tompkins, Colorado; J. H. Voorhees, Pueblo, Col.; William W. 

Wheeler, Meriden, Conn.; Dr. Joshua Perkins, Danielson, Conn.; 

H. C. Baldwin, Naugatuck, Conn.; Benjamin Lundy, Farmington, 

Del.; Charles Beadenkopf, Wilmington, Del; George L. Morris, 

Wilmington, Del. ; S. S. Harvey, Quintette, Fla. ; F. H. Lytle, Stanton, 

Fla. ; J. F. Rhoads, Jacksonville, Fla. ; J. L. Sibley, Marietta, Ga. ; , 

Cary J. Thornton, Columbus, Ga.; J. H. Anderson, Weiser, Idaho; 

A. J. Cook, Payette, Idaho; Ed. Boyce, Wallace, Idaho; 

H. E. Taubeneck, Marshall, 111.; J. D. Hess, Pittsfield, III; 

Eugene Smith, Chicago, III; Joshua Strange, Arcana, Ind.; 

D. H. Fernandes, Anderson, Ind.; W. S. Auston, New 

Albany, Ind.; W. H. Robb, Creston, la.; S. B. Crane, Des Moines, 

la. ; J. E. Anderson, Forest City, la. ; J. M. Allen, Erie, Kas. ; W. D. 

Vincent, Qay Center, Kas. ; A. H. Cardin, Marion, Ky. ; John G. Blair, 


Carlisle, Ky. ; W. B. Bridgeford, Frankfort, Ky. ; A. A. Gunby, Mon- 
roe, La.; J. T. Howell, Baton Rouge, La.; E. C Dillon, Many, La.; 
L. C Bateman, Auburn, Me.; L. W. Smith, Vinalhauen, Me.; Henry 
Betts, Ellsworth, Me. ; C. M. Kemp, Baltimore, Md. ; Hiram Vrooman, 
Baltimore, Md.; T. Canfield Jenkins, Pomonkey, Md.; E. Gerry 
Brown, Brockton, Mass.; P. J. Gardener, Danvers, Mass.; John O. 
Zable, Petersburg, Mich.; James E. McBride, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 
Benjamin Colvin, St. Charles, Mich.; W. R. Dobbyn, Minneapolis, 
Minn.; Thomas J. Meighen, Forestville, Minn.; J. M. Bowler, Bird 
Island, Minn. ; R. K. Prewitt, Ackerman, Miss.; Frank Burkitt, 
Okolona, Miss.; T. L. McGeehee, Summit, Miss.; P. J. Dixon, Chilli- 
cothe, Mo.; J. H. Hillis, McFall, Mo.; Dr. DeWitt Eskew, Poplar 
Bluffs, Mo.; A. E. Spriggs, Townsend, Mont.; M. L. Stewart, Mason, 
Mont; Mrs. Ella K. Haskell, Helena, Mont.; William V. Allen, Mad- 
ison^ Neb.; James H. Edmisten, Lincoln, Neb.; D. Clem Deavcr, 
Omaha, Neb.; J. B. McCullough, Reno, Nev.; C. E. Allen, Eureka, 
Nev.; J. C. Deethe, Keith, Nev.; Darrance B. Currier, Hanover, N. 
H.; G. J. Greenlief, Portsmouth, N. H.; George D. Epps, Francis- 
town, N. H.; J. R. Buchanan, Newark, N. J.; John Wilcox, Bridge- 
ton, N. J.; Eltweed Pomeroy, Newark, N. J.; C. R. White, Miller 
Corners, N. Y.; Lafe Pence, New York City; L. J. McParlin, Lockport, 
N. Y.; J. T. Garrett, Henderson, N. C; A. L. Ramsey, Raleigh, N. C; 
Walter Muir, Hunton, N. D.; Dr. William A. Bentley, Bismarck, N. 
D.; N. O. Noben, Grafton, N. D.; J. S. Coxey, Massilon, O.; Hugh 
Preyor, Cleveland, O.; D. D. Chidester, Ohio; J. W. Marks- 
bury, Gold Hill, Ore. ; John C. Lucy, John Day, Ore. ; John W. Jory, 
Oregon; Jerome B. Aitken, Washington, Pa.; W. Morris Deisher, 
Reading, Pa.; V. A. Lotier, Danville, Pa.; A. J. Plowman, 
Deadwood, S. D.; Henry S. Volknar, Milbank, S. D.; H. P. Smith, 
Madison, S. D.; J. H. McDowell, Union City, Tenn.; J. P. Buchanan, 
Wayside, Tenn.; J. W. James, Chattanooga, Tenn.; C S. Cranberry, 
Austin, Tex.; H. L. Bentley, Abilene, Tex.; Harry Tracey, Dallas, 
Tex.; James Hogan, Ogden, Utah; Mrs. Kate S. Hillard, Ogden, 
Utah; H. W. Lawrence, Salt Lake City, Utah; G. W. B. Hale, Rocky 
Mount, Va.; J. H. Hobson, Belona, Va.; J. W. McGavock, Graham 
Ford, Va.; A. J. Beebe, Swanton, Vt.; A. T. Way, Burlington, Vt; 
C. S. Louis, South Reading, Vt.; E. W. Way, Seattle, Wash.; A. P. 
Tugwell, Chehallis, Wash.; C. W. Young, Pullman, Wash.; Nat. 
Fitzgerald, Terra Alta, W. Va. ; W. R. Neale, Parkersburg, W. Va. ; 
H. T. Houston, Alderson, W. Va. ; Robert Schilling, Milwaukee, Wis. ; 


C. M. Butt, Viroqua, Wis.; William Munro, West Superior, Wis.; 
L. C. Tidball, Sheridan, Wyo.; Eari Hoffer, Sundance, Wyo.; Peter 
Esperson, Cheyenne, Wyo.; W. O. O'Neill, Prescott, Ariz.; Dr. A. 
H. Noon, Oro Blanco, Ariz.; Kean St. Charles, Kingman, Ariz.; M. 
T. Stamm, Albuquerque, N. M.; T. B. Mills, Las Vegas, N. M. ; 
Thomas F. Kelcher, Albuquerque, N. M. ; J. S. Soule, Guthrie, O. T. ; 
R. E. Bray, Enid, O. T. ; W. H. French, Chandler, O. T. ; J. H. Tur- 
ner, Washington, D. C; Rev. E. Kent, Washington, D. C; H. B. 
Martin, Washington, D. C; W. H. Watkins, Indian Territory; G. W. 
Payne, Indian Territory; A. B. Weakley, Indian Territory. 


Ezectstfve G)mmittee* 
Chairman, Charles D. Lane, Angel's Camp, Cal.; Vice-Chairman, 
Isaac N. Stevens, Denver, Col. ; Treasurer, William P. St. John, New 
York, N. Y.; Secretary, R. E. Difenderfer, Philadelphia, Pa.; William 
H. Harvey, Chicago, 111.; George P. Keeney, San Francisco, Cal.; 
Curtis J. Hillyer, Washington, D. C; George S. Nixon, Winnemucca, 
Nev.; Benjamin A. Flower, Boston, Mass. 

Remaining Mcmbefs of National G>nimittee* 
R. H. Walker, Athens, Ala.; Dr. J. J. White (of Arizona), 
Washington, D. C; G. W. Baker, San Francisco, Cal.; Alexander 
Troup, New Haven, Conn.; G. G. Harvey, Florida; Judge Clag- 
get, Boise City, Idaho; Dr. G. M. Emerick, Chicago, III.; Anson Wal- 
cott, Walcott P. O., Ind.; Amos Steckel, Bloomfield, la.; R. W. Tur- 
ner, Mankato, Kas.; J. P. Hendrick, Flemingsburg, Ky.; C. R. Darby, 
Sellman, Md.; E. B. Newhall, Lynn, Mass.; E. E. Jarvis, Benton Har- 
bor, Mich.; J. W. Griffin, Minneapolis, Minn.; J. D. Clarkson, St 
Louis, Mo.; C. G. Bradshaw, Butte, Mont.; G. L. Laws, Lincoln, 
Neb. ; Thomas Wrenn, Eureka, T^ev. ; S. W. Reese, Westfield, N. J. ; 
B. F. Keith, Wilmington, N. C; W. H. Standish, Grand Forks, N. D.; 
H. T. Niles, Toledo, O. ; A. Hofer, Salem, Ore. ; J. W. Bowden, Den- 
ver P. O., S. C; F. Kehler, Galveston, Tex.; Richard Mackintosh, 
Salt Lake, Utah; Joseph Battell, Middlebury, Vt.; Alexander J. Wed- 
derburn (of Virginia), Washington, D. C; G. W. Thompson, Ta- 
coma, Wash.; I. C. Ralfsnyder, Fairmount, V/. Va. ; Rublee A. Cole, 
Milwaukee, Wis.; Richard Lewis, Alaska; M. M. Edmonston, Vinita, 
Indian Territory. 

The Democratic committee opened headquarters at Chicago, but 
for awhile had a branch office at Washington, D. C. The National 


Silver party and the People's party had their headquarters at Wash- 
ington, the former with a branch at Chicago. The three national 
committees deserve great credit for the manner in which they conducted 
the campaign. They were very much embarrassed by lack of funds, but 
utilized, for the circulation of literature, all the money they could ob- 
tain. The Democratic committee sent out a great many speeches 
and arranged for a large number of public meetings. Hon. D. Mc- 
Connville of Springfield, O., was in charge of the speaker's bureau. 
Senator A. P. Gorman of Maryland, was in charge of the campaign in 
the Eastern States. The Democratic committee received great aid 
from the Democratic Congressional Committee, of which Senator 
Charles J. Faulkner of West Virginia was chairman, and from the 
National Association of Democratic Clubs, of which Hon. Chauncey 
F. Black, of York, Pa., was president and Hon. Lawrence Gardner of 
the District of Columbia, secretary. 

On the 22d of August, Chairman Jones issued the following appeal : 

Appeal for Funds* 

To the People of the United States: The Democratic party in the present 
contest is engaged in the defense of the plain people against the encroachments 
of the favored classes. This is purely an economic issue. In its importance, 
however, it overshadows every question which has occupied public attention 
since the tragic campaign of x86o. It presents an alternative at once impera- 
tive and terrible; it is imperative because delay may take from us the possibility 
of choice, and terrible because of the dire consequences which must follow 

Is the American Union big enough, strong enough and patriotic enough to 
have its own financial policy? If not, then we are the serfs of the money 
changers of Europe and their agents in this country, and are doomed to a 
vassalage more ignominious and more degrading than that against which our 
fathers fought a century ago. Our manhood, our freedom, the fruits of our 
industry, the integrity of our homes, everything that enlightened men hold 
dear — ^all these are the playthings of aliens and the prey of usurers. 

The American people are not ready to surrender the liberties for which 
their forefathers shed their blood. We believe that liberty and self-government 
are destined to remain the heritage of this splendid nation; that we shall not 
be fated to become a living lie, a nation of slaves, callous and degraded enough 
to wear only the mask of freedom. 

We have allied against us in this contest not only the financial forces of 
Europe, but the subsidized press and all the monopolies and trusts here at 
home, who are determined, if possible, to fix forever their relentless yoke upon 
labor of all kinds. 

To oppose them we must rely upon the patriotism and heroic manliness 
of the plain people — the toilers who create the wealth which speculators absorb. 
With unlimited money in their hands, our enimies arc printing and distributing 


misleading and untruthfull statements; hired speakers and paid emissaries are 
everywhere attempting to mislead and delude the people. 

To meet and counteract this we must distribute documents for the dissemi- 
nation of the truth; we must expose their fallacies, their misstatements and 
their utter selfishness. 

To do so we need money at once, and can only hope for help from the 
plain people. We ask only for the necessary means to conduct a vigorous and 
aggressive campaign. No matter in how small sums, no matter by what hum- 
ble contributions, let the friends of liberty and national honor contribute all 
they can to the good cause. To the overflowing treasury of the money power 
we will oppose the accumulated offerings of t'he masses, fighting to be free, 
and ask the Ruler of the Universe for His blessing. 

Wherever there is a bank or money order office remittances can easily 
be made to William P. St. John, treasurer of the National Democratic Com- 
mittee, Bartholdi Hotel, New York City. A receipt will be returned in every 

When victory is achieved over the unscrupulous combinations which are 
endeavoring to thrust William McKinley into the presidential office the re- 
corded list of the contributors to this good cause will be a roll of honor of 
which any one may well be proud. 

James K. Jones, Chairman National Democratic Committee. 

As a result of this appeal a considerable sum was realized, most 
of it being subscribed in small amounts. Many newspapers called for 
subscriptions and the money raised by them was of material assistance. 
The New York Journal raised the largest fund, turning over to the 
National Committee $40,901.20. Of this sum $15,000 was subscribed 
by the Journal itself. 

Mr. Stevens was in charge of the headquarters of the National 
Silver party and his committee circulated some eight million docu- 
ments. One million copies of Archbishop Walsh's pamphlet on bi- 
metallism were distributed, one half being printed in English and one 
half in German. This committee circulated 125,000 copies of Coin's 
Financial School and also organized about five thousand silver clubs, 
composed largely of persons who had been Republicans. 

In addition to this, the committee was instrumental in organizing 
the Women's National Silver League, with Mrs. Lillie Duncanson as 
president. The headquarters of this league were established at Chi- 
cago and branch leagues organized in various parts of the country. 

The Executive Committee of the People's party co-operated with 
the Democratic party in securing fusion upon electors in as many 
States as possible. The address published below was issued just before 
the close of the campaign and was both a justification of the course 
pursued by the committee and an appeal to the members of the Pop- 
ulist party to support the fusion electors. 


AddfCH Iitucd by Populist Coavcntloiu 

To the People's Party Voters of the United States: Your national commit- 
tee indulged the hope that the patriotic action of the People's party in national 
convention in subordinating the interests of party to the success of the vital 
issues involved in this campaign would be met by equally unselfish devotion 
to a common interest on the part of the Democratic party, and that all the 
friends of silver could present a solid front against the minions of greed by sup- 
porting one ticket, the truly co-operative ticket, Bryan and Watson. But this 
hope being disappointed, there were but two courses left, one of which must be 

First. To run a straight Bryan and Watson electoral ticket in every State, 
which, on account of the failure of the Democratic party to support this ticket, 
would have effected the same result in this campaign that would have followed 
the nomination of a straight Populist ticket at St. Louis, namely, the election 
of McKinley and the triumph of the gold standard. 

It is true that the Democratic party would be responsible even to a greater 
extent than ourselves for such a result, but to permit evil to triumph on such 
grounds would convict us as well as them of a lack of patriotism and narrow 
partisanship that would deservedly forfeit to us the confidence of the American 
people. Remember that two wrongs never make a right. 

When our devotion to the welfare of the people falters because of any 
failure on the part of the Democratic or any other party, then indeed will we 
have lowered our standard and proven ourselves false to our own teachings and 
repudiated our own motto of country first, and men and parties second. The 
brave, enlightened voters who constitute the rank and file of the People's party 
are incapable of such base betrayal of their country as would result from a 
division in the ranks of those opposing the machinations of the confederated 
money power of the two continents against the homes and liberties of the 
American people, and would repudiate any action on the part of their leaders 
opposed to united effort at this time, as they repudiated the old parties for 
treachery to their interests. 

The other course left open to your committee that was consistent with the 
action of the convention in nominating Mr. Bryan was to do everything in its 
power to unite the voters of the country against McKinley, and to overcome 
the obstacles and embarrassments which, if the Democratic party had put the 
cause first and party second, we would not have encountered. 

This could be accomplished only by arranging for a division of the electoral 
vote in every State possible, securing so many electors for Bryan and Watson 
and conceding so many to Bryan and Sewall. At the opening of the campaign 
this, under the circumstances, seemed the wisest course for your committee, 
and it is clearer today than ever that it was the only safe and wise course if our 
votes were to be cast and made effective for the relief of an oppressed and out- 
raged people. Following this line of policy your committee has arranged 
electoral tickets in three-fourths of the States and will do all in its power 
to make the same arrangements in all of the States. 

By perfecting this arrangement, and every sincere opponent of the gold 
standard giving loyal support to these joint electoral tickets, the People's 
party will not only secure in the electoral college for Bryan and Watson several 


times as many votes as we could have possibly secured by making a straight 
fight, but we will secure the defeat of McKinley and the gold standard, which 
should now be the greatest desire of every citizen who believes in the principles 
of true Democracy as taught by Jefferson, and of true Republicanism as repre- 
sented by Abraham Lincoln. 

By this arrangement we can unite a large majority of the voters of America 
on our joint electoral tickets; therefore the only hope of the money power and 
trust is divide and conquer. The Republican managers and their gold Demo- 
cratic allies realize this, and are putting forth every effort to accomplish this end. 
They have had their emissaries on hand everywhere trying to prevent joint 
electoral tickets from being arranged; failing in this, they try to find Populists 
and silver Democrats who can be induced, on one pretext or another, to rebel 
against the joint electoral tickets. They either have secured, or will secure, 
the services of every man that money can command, to breed dissensions and 

The danger lies in the possibility of a certain portion of the rank and file 
of the People's party being misled by so-called leaders, who, for reasons best 
known to themselves, or for want of reason, are advising voters to rebel against 
the joint electoral tickets and put up separate electoral tickets, or to withhold 
their support from the joint electoral tickets. 

Some of the Democrats of the revenue stripe, who are not yet weaned from 
the fleshpots of Egypt, but are sticklers for regularity, and are nominally sup- 
porting Mr. Bryan, while secretly and in every underhanded way are trying 
to accomplish his defeat, are advising against the joint electoral tickets, and 
failing in this they advise Democrats to scratch People's party electors, and 
already a few so-called Populist leaders are advising the rank and file of our 
party to strike back by refusing to support the Democratic electors on the joint 
electoral tickets. This is a trap set by the goldbugs, who are rejoicing that a 
few honest men have fallen into it. These reports today are the only ones that 
buoy up the hopes of the Republican managers, and the Democrats and 
Populists who are thus engaged are doing just what the gold men most desire. 
Therefore we appeal to every Populist, who may have been misled by such 
mistaken or false pleas of pretended loyalty to the People's party into refusing 
support to such joint electoral tickets, to stop and consider the results of such 
conduct, and refuse to be influenced by either misguided or corrupt men. 

There are but two sides in the conflict that is being waged in this country 
today. On the one side are the allied hosts of monopolies, the money power, 
great trusts, and railway corporations, who seek the enactment of laws to bene- 
fit them and impoverish the people. On the other side are the farmers, laborers, 
merchants, and all others who produce wealth and bear the burden of taxation. 
The one represents the wealthy and powerful classes who want the control of 
the Government to plunder the people. The other represents the people, con- 
tending for equality before the law and the rights of man. Between these two 
there is no middle ground. 

The one and only hope of the Republican party to win in this campaign 
and fasten the gold standard upon the country is the corrupt use of an unlimited 
supply of money for bribery, corruption, and intimidation. The patriotic action 
of the People's party in forming and supportmg these join* electoral tickets has 


shattered that hope. Already they are alarmed at the impotency of a boodle 
campaign, when all of the great moral forces of the people are solidly united in 
defense of American institutions. The revulsion of the American people against 
this boodle campaign during the last ten days has so united them that victory is 
now assured. 

The People's party made this revolution possible. Let every one do his 
duty and fail not. Let our boast be that we are American citizens, and that 
American citizens are more than partisans. 

This done, the cohorts of domestic and foreign greed will be driven from 
our legislative councils and the domination of American institutions; this done, 
and the betrayed Republic will be redeemed and American prosperity restored. 
The men and the party that achieve such grand and patriotic results in this 
crisis will be the men and the party of the future. It has been left for the 
People's party and the silver Republicans to make the party sacrifice and to 
do the patriotic work necessary to accomplish this result. 

The People's party must do it, for no other party will; the People's party 
will do it. Therefore, the People's party will be the party of the future. The 
American people will recognize it as the agency that saved the day when their 
interests were at stake; the American people will rally around its banner 
as the party to contend against the enemy of good government in the future. 
Every man to his post, and the victory is won. 

Marion Butler, Chairman; 

J. R. Sovereign, 

H. W. Reed, 

George F. Washburn, 

John W. Breidenthal, 

M. C. Rankin, 

C. F. Taylor, 

J. A. Edgerton, Secretary. 

After a campaign is over, it is sometimes possible to point to mis- 
takes in management which affected the result, but I do not believe 
that any one will be able to point out a serious mistake made by either 
of the above committees, nor can one point to an instance in which 
either committee failed to improve an opportunity presented. Their 
work deserves the greater commendation when it is remembered that 
many of those prominent in the three committees had had but little 
previous experience in political management. 



THE days which intervened between the return from the con- 
vention and the departure for New York were spent in Lin- 
coln, with the exception of one day when I went to Omaha to 
meet the people of that city. The reception there was conducted with 
Democratic simplicity, consisting of an impromptu escort from the 
depot to a platform erected at the intersection of 15th and Douglas 
streets, where I was welcomed by Mayor Broatch, made a brief ad- 
dress and shook hands with the crowd. 

At Lincoln the time was spent, first, in answering telegrams and 
letters of congratulation, then in receiving delegations en route to the 
Populist and Silver Conventions at St. Louis, then in receiving news 
from the conventions, and afterwards in the preparation of my Madison 
Square Garden speech. 

The action of the National Silver Convention was known in ad- 
vance, but there was considerable uncertainty as to the result of the 
Populist Convention. The Populists were divided in sentiment into 
three classes. First, there were those who were in favor of endorsing 
the Chicago ticket entire ; second, those who were in favor of endorsing 
the ticket to the extent of the Presidential nomination, but in favor of 
a Populist for Vice-President; and, third, those who favored the nomi- 
nation of a Populist ticket entire. It was noticeable, too, that, as a 
rule, the States in w^hich the Populists and Democrats had been in the 
habit of co-operating against the Republicans sent delegations more 
friendly to fusion than the States wherein the Populist party had been 
a menace to Democratic supremacy. I fully realized the embarrass- 
ment which differing conditions brought about. In Nebraska, the 
Populists and Democrats had in several campaigns acted together, 
noticeably in the election of Hon. William V. Allen to the United 
States Senate, and in the election of Hon. Silas A. Holcomb, Governor. 
Then, too, in Nebraska, the Populists, Democrats and silver Repub- 
licans had acted together in carrying on the educational work in be- 
half of bimetallism, and this association made co-operation in national 
politics easier. In fact, I believe that my nomination can be attributed 



more to the friendly relations existing between the Democrats, Popu- 
lists and free silver Republicans than to any other one cause. 

The opposition of the Populists to the nomination of Mr. Sewall 
placed me in an embarrassing position. Throughout the entire cam- 
paign it was the most trying feature. 

When the convention decided to nominate the Vice-President first it 
became apparent that it would select a Populist for that office, and Sen- 
ator Jones wired me giving his opinion and asking mine. These dis- 
patches were published before my nomination, and referred to by Mr. 
Weaver in his nominating speech. The delegates took the position 
that, whether I was a candidate or not, they had a right to nominate 
me if they desired to do so. When the nomination was finally an- 
nounced I gave to the press the following statement, which contains 
Senator Jones' telegram and my reply: 

Tiie Interview* 

When the Populists decided to nominate the Vice-President first Senator 
Jones, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, wired me as follows: 
"Populists nominate Vice-President first. If not Sewall, what shall we do? 
Answer quick. I favor your declination in that case." I answered immediately: 
**I entirely agree with you. Withdraw my name if Sewall is not nominated." 

These dispatches were published in this morning's papers and the conven- 
tion understood my position. In spite of this it has seen fit to nominate me. 
Whether I shall accept the nomination or not will depend upon the conditions 
which are attached to it. My first desire is to aid in securing the immediate 
restoration by the United States of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and 
silver at the present legal ratio of i6 to i, without waiting for the aid or consent 
of any other nation. 

The Republican platform declares that, the bimetallic system should be 
restored, but asserts that we, as a people, are helpless to secure bimetallism for 
ourselves until foreign nations come to our assistance. We cannot afford to 
surrender our right to legislate for ourselves upon every question, and so long 
as that right is disputed no other question can approach it in importance. 

I appreciate the desire, manifested at St. Louis, to consolidate all the free 
silver forces, and regret that they did not nominate Mr. Sewall also. He stands 
squarely upon the Chicago platform and has defended our cause against greater 
opposition than we have had to meet in the West and South. 

The Populist platform is, on many questions, substantially identical with 
the Chicago platform; it goes beyond the Chicago platform, however, and en- 
dorses some policies of which I do not approve. All that I can now say is that 
my action will depend entirely upon the conditions attached to the nomination. 

I shall do nothing which will endanger the success of bimetallism, nor shall 
I do anything unfair to Mr. Sewall. 

This interview was my only public utterance in regard to the nomi- 
nation until my letter of acceptance was written. 


I received by mail a letter written by Mr. Sewall immediately after 
the nomination of Mr. Watson,and before the above interview appeared 
in print. This letter was afterwards published by Mr. Jones and I re- 
produce it here because it shows the attitude in which Mr. Sewall 
stood during the campaign. He would have been willing at any time 
to sacrifice his own ambition for the good of the cause, had his with- 
drawal been thought wise by the leaders of the party; but there was 
never a time when, in their opinion, his withdrawal would have aided 

the success of the ticket. The letter reads : 

Batlx, Me., July 25, 1896. 
Hon. J. W. Bryan, Lincoln, Nebraska. — My Dear Mr. Bryan: In view of 
the action of the St. Louis Convention, I cannot refrain from giving you 
my thoughts upon the situation. My advices are that you have been nominated 
a candidate for President and Mr. Watson for Vice-President. I also learn 
from press dispatches that you are somewhat undecided whether you 
ought to accept or decline. Now, I desire to say to you, with the utmost 
frankness and good feeling, that you must not allow any personal con- 
sideration for me to influence you in your action. I desire you to do just 
what you believe to be best for the success of our ticket The principles which 
we are fighting for are so paramount to any personal consideration that 
the latter should not have any weight or influence whatever with your 
action. I cannot for a moment allow myself to be a factor in any action on 
your part that would, in the slightest degree, hazard an electoral vote for 


Your sincere friend, 


Looking back over the campaign I am now convinced that under 
the conditions then existing two Vice-Presidential candidates were 
better than one, and that, notwithstanding the embarrassment at the 
time, the silver cause made a better showing than it would have done if 
Mr. Sewall had withdrawn in favor of Mr. Watson, or Mr. Watson in 
favor of Mr. Sewall. 

Scarcely a day passed between the adjournment of the conven- 
tion and election day that I was not asked to confirm or deny some 
campaign rumor. Stories in regard to promised cabinet appoint- 
ments came first. After the discussion had proceeded far enough to 
interest the public, I gave out the following statement, under date 
of August 2: 

I have not directly or indirectly promised any office of any kind to any 
person whomsoever, and shall not during the campaign promise any office of 
any kind to any person whomsoever. 

I may add that with the exception of less than half a dozen minor 
postoffices, nobody during the campaign asked for any appointment 
or promise of appointment. 


In consultation with the National Committee I had favored the 
opening of the campaign in New York City, believing that it would 
arouse the enthusiasm of our supporters to attack the enemy first in 
the stronghold of the gold sentiment. 

The determination to read the speech was formed as soon as its 
preparation was commenced. This being the first speech of the cam- 
paign, it would necessarily be subjected to hostile criticism by the 
opposition press and I was compelled to choose between an extempo- 
raneous speech, which would be less concise and comprehensive, and 
a speech which, because read from manuscript, would disappoint the 
audience. I knew, too, that in order to secure the publication of an 
accurate report of the speech in the daily papers it would be necessary 
to furnish a copy in advance of delivery, and I knew that if delivered 
from memory it would be taken down in shorthand and compared with 
the copy furnished to the press. After weighing the relative advan- 
tages of, and objections to, the two modes of delivery, I concluded 
that it was the part of wisdom to disappoint the few thousands who 
would be in the hall in order to reach the hundreds of thousands who 
would read it in print. Having decided to use my manuscript it was 
necessary to make the speech as brief as possible because the crime of 
reading a speech increases in heinousness in proportion to its length. 

In order to emphasize the silver question as the paramount issue 
of the campaign I left to my letter of acceptance all the other parts of 
the platform, making an exception only of the income tax plank which 
has been misconstrued and bitterly assailed. As is usual in the prep- 
aration of a speech for an important occasion, the matter was the sub- 
ject of such continuous consideration that it not only occupied my 
thoughts by day, but at once suggested itself if I awoke in the night. 
While I was endeavoring to construct a fitting conclusion to the speech, 
there occurred to me, during one of these moments of wakefulness, 
the idea which was afterward employed, namely, the comparison be- 
tween a Columbia waiting for foreign aid and the Goddess of Liberty 
enlightening the world. This conception was afterward illustrated 
by the New York Journal, and it has always seemed to me to repre- 
sent most appropriately the difference between financial independence 
and the doctrine of servile acquiescence in a foreign policy. 



ON Friday, August the 8th, at 2 o'clock p. m., we boarded the 
Rock Island train and began the journey to New York. Be- 
sides the newspaper correspondents our party consisted of 
Mrs. Bryan and myself. The crowd had gathered at the depot, and in 
response to calls for a speech, I said: 

Tiie Enemy's Gountfy* 

In ordinary times I would have desired to have the notification take place at 
my home. But this is not an ordinary campaign, and, feeling that the prin- 
ciples in which we are interested should rise above any personal preferences 
which we may have, I expressed the desire to be notified in New York, in order 
that our cause might be presented first in the heart of what now seems to be 
the enemy's country, but which we hope to be our country before this cam- 
paign is over. I appreciate the kindness which you, our neighbors, have shown 
in gathering here to bid us good bye. All that I can promise you is that, 
whether what I do meets with your approval or not, I shall do my duty as I see 
it, and accept all consequences which may follow. 

The phrase "the enemy's country" was picked out for criticism by 
our opponents, and often used in a sense entirely different from the 
one intended by me. 

At Omaha a number of friends had assembled and a still larger 
number at Council Bluffs. Our train stopped at nearly all the sta- 
tions, and at most of them people in greater or less numbers had as- 
sembled. I made short speeches at Avoca, Atlantic and Stuart. We 
reached Des Moines about 9:30 o'clock, and were met at the depot 
by a reception committee headed by ex-Governor Boies and General 
James B. Weaver. We drove across the river to the tabernacle, where 
the principal meeting was held. The hall was so packed with peo- 
ple that we had difficulty in getting to the stage. Mr. Boies pre- 
sided, and introduced me in a very graceful speech. I referred to 
the campaigns of '91 and '93, when I visited Iowa and spoke in be- 
half of Governor Boies. In speaking of his candidacy before the 
National Convention, I said: 



Des Moines Speedu 

If in the National Convention which has just closed the choice fell upon me 
rather than upon him, it was not because of any superior merit on my part, but 
because of the circumstances which surrounded that convention. I do not 
take unto myself credit for what was done. I believe that those delegates 
were as honest and as earnest a body of men as were ever assembled in con- 
vention. After reviewing the situation they decided — whether wisely or fool- 
ishly, time will tell — ^that, under all the circumstances, the nomination should 
fall to me, and I am on my way now to the city of New York to receive the 

I did not speak long, and avoided here, as I did generally before 
the notification meeting, any extended discussion of political ques- 
tions. An overflow meeting was held just outside of the hall. 

We resumed our journey at 7 o'clock the next morning, taking 
the Rock Island train for Chicago. This was a slow train, and stopped 
at all the stations. I made short speeches at a large number of places 
that day. The first stop was at Colfax, the home of General James 
B. Weaver. Here I took occasion to express my appreciation of his 
pioneer work. At the next town, Newton, I spoke of one of the 
laws of finance called to mind by the name of the town. I said : 

Newton Speech* 

Some of the laws of finance — I may say all the great laws of finance — arc 
as certain in their operation and as irresistible in their force as the law of 
gravitation. If you throw a stone into the air you know that it will come 
down. Why? Because it is drawn toward the center of the earth. The law 
upon which we base our fight is as sure as the law of gravitation. If we have 
a gold standard, prices are as certain to fall as the stone which is thrown into 
the air. 

Short stops were made, among other places, Grinnell, Iowa City, 
West Liberty and Moscow. Before we reached Davenport we re- 
ceived a committee representing the Democrats of that city, and 
when we arrived there found a very enthusiastic crowd of silverites. 
Knowing that Davenport was considered one of the strongholds of 
the gold Democrats, I was both surprised and pleased to find so much 
interest manifested. 

During the run through Iowa a little incident occurred which illus- 
trates the brevity of some of our stops. As we approached one of the 
smaller stations, an enthusiastic supporter announced that we were 
coming to his town and that he would introduce me to the crowd. 
When the train came to a stop, he took his place upon the rear plat- 
form and said in substance: "Ladies and Gentlemen: This is the 
proudest moment of my life. It gives me pleasure to introduce to 


you (the train then began to move, and as he jumped off of the 
car he concluded) the- next President of the United States, William 
Jennings Bryan." By this time the train had gone so far that I could 
only bow my acknowledgments and retire. 

I might suggest here that introductions were sometimes so eulo- 
gistic as to be embarrassing. Every candidate receives the title, "the 

next ," and I soon became accustomed to that form of 

introduction. But sometimes the zeal of the presiding officer led 
him into such extravagant flattery that I felt tempted to tell of a 
form of introduction which was once employed at an Illinois 
meeting. As this meeting brought out several amusing incidents 
V.hich will be enjoyed by any one who has had experience in pub- 
lic speaking, I will describe it. In the month of October, 1884, the 
Democratic committee made an appointment for me to address the 
people at Buckhorn schoolhouse, which is situated some six miles 
to the southwest of Jacksonville. Mr. M. F. Dunlap, a Democratic 
co-worker, accompanied me, and, as neither of us knew the road, we 
inquired the way from time to time. When nearly there, a gentleman 
rode by and we asked about the road. He at firft informed us that 
we ought to have turned off a half mile back, but later assured us 
that we were on the right road, explaining that when he gave the 
first answer he was under the impression that we were going out to 
disturb the meeting. On arriving at the schoolhouse one of the 
crowd was quite urgent in an invitation to partake of the contents 
of a bottle of hip-pocket size. When the offer had been declined 
repeatedly, the gentleman expressed the friendly hope that I would 
speak as well as I could anyhow, emphasizing the "anyhow" in a 
way that indicated that he could not expect much under the cir- 
cumstances. Before the meeting was called to order, one of the audi- 
ence cautioned me against talking too long, and remarked that only 
a few nights before a speaker had nearly worn them out, while an- 
other encouraged me with the advice: "Hit 'em hard, there isn't a 
Republican here." 

The chairman of the meeting asked me to suggest a proper form 
of introduction, and, being anxious to secure whatever professional 
advertisement the meeting might give, I replied that he might say: 
"Mr. W. J. Bryan, an attorney at law, of Jacksonville, will now ad- 
dress you." His enthusiasm, together with his embarrassment, led 
to an abbreviated introduction which, when concluded, sounded about 
like this: "Mr. O'Brien will now spake." 


I have often referred to this introduction as the best one I ever 
received, because, instead of raising the expectations of the audience 
he simply threw me upon the mercy of my hearers and left me to 
hoe my own row. This meeting has been fixed in my mind by 
the additional fact that, when I removed to Nebraska, my first fee 
was received from a man with whom I became acquainted at the 
Buckhom meeting, and who located in Nebraska just before I did. 

But to return to the journey. 

Crossing the Mississippi we entered Illinois at Rock Island, and 
there found another large crowd assembled, as there was also at 
Moline. We made short stops at Geneseo, Anawan, and Sheffield. 
At Bureau I received the following note from the brother of the great 
American poet, William Cullen Bryant: "Princeton, Illinois, August 
8, 1896. — Eighty-nine to thirty-six — The people's man. John Howard 

We found crowds gathered at Spring Valley and Peru. At the last 
named place, finding that I could not shake hands with all, I em- 
ployed a plan of which I learned a number of years ago. I asked 
them to hold up their hands, and then we shook at long range, 
they shaking their hands and I mine. 

The train also stopped at Ottawa, Morris and Joliet. There was a 
large gathering at the last named place, and here we met the Chicago 
reception committee of more than a hundred. When we reached Chica- 
go we found an enormous number waiting at the depot. A procession 
headed by the police and made up of the reception committee, band. 
Cook County Democratic Club, Cook County Central Committee, 
labor organizations. Cook County Silver Club, the Chicago Uni- 
versity Bryan Club and the Democratic ward clubs, led the way by 
a roundabout route to the Clifton. Great enthusiasm was ex- 
hibited all along the line of march. The crowd assembled in 
front of the hotel filled the streets half a block each way, and 
was so large that I found it difficult to make all of them hear. Judge 
W. J. Strong, until recently a Republican, delivered an address of 
greeting, and I responded in a brief speech, a part of which I quote: 

Chicago Speech— First Reception* 
When I see this assemblage tonight and then remember what the news- 
papers of this city say, I am reminded of an expression recently made by one of 
our friends: "There is nobody on our side but the people." And as I look 
into the faces of these people and remember that our enemies call them a mob, 
and say they are a menace to free government, T ask: Who shall save the 
people from themselves? I am proud to have in this campaign the support 


of those who call themselves the common people. If I had behind me the 
g^reat trusts and combinations, I know that I would no sooner take my seat than 
they would demand that I use my power to rob the people in their behalf. But 
having rather the support of the great toiling masses, I know that when they 
give me their ballots they unite in saying, "Do your duty and we will be repaid." 
These are the people who ask no favors of government; these are the people 
who simply ask for equality before the law; they demand equal rights to all and 
special privileges to none. I am glad to have the support of these people, 
because I know that when the nation is in peril every able-bodied man among 
them is willing to shoulder his musket to save his country; and I believe that 
those who are good enough to offer their blood upon the altar of their country 
in time of danger are good enough to trust in the hour of peace and quiet. 

Mrs. Bryan and I attended the First Presbyterian church at Engle- 
wood and heard Rev. John Qark Hill, who had been called to the pul- 
pit in our home church. We rested in the afternoon, and just before 
midnight took the train for Pittsburg. Night is supposed to be a sea- 
son of rest, but I found during the campaign that the rule could not 
always be observed. That night was my first introduction to midnight 
campaigning. At Valparaiso, Indiana, we found a thousand or more, 
many of them students. I spoke to them for a moment. At 4:45 I 
was again up — ^this time to greet a small crowd at Columbia City. It 
was half past five when we reached Fort Wayne, and there a con- 
siderable number had assembled. 

At Delphos, Ohio, the depot platform gave way, causing con- 
siderable fright, but no injury. This was the first experience with 
falling platforms, but during the campaign there were five or six other 
accidents of this kind. 

At Lima a large crowd had assembled, and I saw some with 
whose faces I had become familiar when I spoke there during the 
summer of 1895. 

At Ada I met a number of the students whom I had addressed 
about a year before upon invitation of Prof. Lehr, of the Normal Col- 
lege at that place. 

At Bucyrus I was introduced by ex-Congressman Findley, who 
has for many years been identified with the silver cause; he was a 
delegate to the last Democratic National Convention. 

There was a considerable crowd at Mansfield, Senator Sherman's 
home. At Crestline we found a very enthusiastic audience assem- 
bled, and here became the victim of the snap shot. The kodak of 
every size and make presented itself in all parts of the country, but 
this one found Mrs. Bryan with her hat pushed to one side, and just 
in the act of shaking hands with an enthusiastic silverite. 


By the courtesy of Mr. M. W. McDonald, of Gallon, O., this pic- 
ture is reproduced on another page. 

The largest Ohio crowd was found at Canton. I give below the 
speech made there. I was glad to be able to pay a compliment to 
my opponent, and repeated before his neighbors what I had said 
elsewhere in regard to his personal character. 

Gmtoa Speech* 

Mr. Chairmah, Ladies and Gentlemen: When I received notice a short 
time ago of the organization of a silver club in this city, I little imagined the 
tremendous sentiment which seems to be behind the club. I am glad to meet 
the people of this city, the home of my distinguished opponent, and am glad 
in their presence to testify to his high character and great personal worth. I 
shall be satisfied if as an individual I may be able to stand beside him in public 
esteem. But, my friends, this is not a contest between individuals. It matters 
little to the American people whether >our distinguished townsman or myself 
occupies the chief executive position in this, the greatest nation upon earth, 
but it does matter a great deal for what policies the President shall stand. In 
this campaign the personality of the candidates is lost sight of entirely in the 
principles for which the candidates stand. In my own State and in my own 
city there are many people who believe that the interests of the country will 
be better served by the election of my opponent, and I am gratified to know 
that in his home there are so many who believe that the interests of the 
country will be best served by his defeat. He is your neighbor, as we ordinarily 
use the word, but I beg you to turn to the Scriptures and there read the 
parable of the neighbor, for while I may not be your neighbor, geographically 
speaking, I may be your neighbor in the sense in which the word is used in 
the parable. In this contest I hope to be the neighbor of those who have fallen 
among thieves. He is a neighbor who, in the hour of distress, brings relief. 
At this time, when we are cursed by an European financial policy which our 
opponents tell us we must endure until relief comes to us from abroad, I be- 
lieve that that man is the neighbor of all the toiling masses who asks for the 
immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the 
present legal ratio of i6 to i, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other 
nation. I tell my neighbors at home that I shall bear them no ill will if they 
believe that my opponent should be elected, and I have so high an opinion of 
my opponent that I know he will say to his townsmen here that every one should 
be free to make his ballot represent a freeman's will, although it may result 
in keeping your distinguished citizen among you as a neighbor still. 

Learning on my departure from Chicago that some effort was be- 
ing made to coerce railroad employes into the support of the Repub- 
lican ticket, I took occasion to mention the subject at Alliance, where 
many railroad men were gathered. The following is an extract : 

AlHance Speedu 
The employer and the employe have a right to differ in politics. Remember 
that we live in a nation where the salary which a man receives does not purchase 


his citizenship. No wages are high enough to include citizenship. The dollars 
which are paid for the labor of the hand or mind are paid for labor and not for 

This subject was referred to in several subsequent speeches. 

The Pittsburg reception committee met us at Canton and a large 
crowd greeted us at the depot. The Pittsburg meetings were a sur- 
prise both in attendance and in enthusiasm. After witnessing an un- 
usual demonstration, I said: 

Pittsburgh Speedu 

I thought it might be necessary in coming so far towards the East to bring 
with me a few of our people to keep up the enthusiasm while I defended the 
principles set forth in the Chicago platform. But after seeing a few audiences 
like this I am wondering whether I should not take a few of you back with me 
to set an example of enthusiasm to the people of the West. It is no longer 
"the wild West," it is the wild East now. 

In the speeches at Pittsburg, I discussed the general principles of 
government, avoiding campaign issues as far as possible. After the 
meetings, Mrs. Bryan and I attended a reception given by the Samuel 
J. Randall Club and were notified of our election to honorary member- 
ship iif the club, she having the distinction of being the only lady to 
whom the compliment had been paid. 

We left the next morning over the Pennsylvania for New York. 
Hon. James Kerr of Pennsylvania, Clerk of the House while I was in 
Congress and during the late campaign a member of the Campaign 
Committee, met us at Pittsburg and took charge of our party to New 
York. Our train only made a few stops, the principal ones being at 
Altoona, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Philadelphia, where large crowds 
were gathered. 

It was dark when we reached New York and we were met by 
Chairman Jones of the National Committee, Mr. St. John, Treasurer, 
Mr. Sewall and a number of others. The weather being very warm 
we were quite fatigued by the journey and went at once to Mr. St. 
John's residence on Thirty- Fourth street. 



THE next day was spent in resting and getting my speech into 
print. So much was said at the time about the Madison 
Square Garden meeting that I need only refer to it briefly. 
Before the hour appointed for the notification exercises, the hall, 
which had been tastefully decorated, was filled to its utmost capacity 
and more were on the outside than were able to secure tickets of ad- 
mission. Hon. Elliott Danforth, the New York member of the Notifi- 
cation Committee and, during the campaign, chairman of the New 
York State Committee, presided at the meeting and delivered a brief 
address of welcome. In the absence of Senator White, Governor Wil- 
liam J. Stone, of Missouri, delivered the letter of notification, preceding 
the delivery of the speech which will be found below. 

Mr* Stone^s Speech* 

Mr. Chairman: We are here this evening to give formal notice of their 
selection to the gentlemen nominated by the National Democratic Convention 
as candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States. Hitherto, 
by immemorial custom, the pleasing duty of delivering notifications of this 
character has devolved upon the permanent chairman of the National Con- 
vention acting, by virtue of his office, as chairman of the Notification Commit- 
tee. Except for unfortunate circumstances, unexpected and unavoidable, the 
usual custom would not be departed from in the present instance. I regret to 
say, however, that unforeseen events of a personal nature have arisen which make 
it practically impossible for the chairman of the convention, the Hon. Stephen 
M. White, of California, to be in New York at this time. A few days since 
he telegraphed me to that effect, and did me the honor to request me to repre- 
sent him on this occasion. While I greatly appreciate the compliment con- 
ferred by this designation, I can not but deplore the enforced absence of the 
distinguished Senator from California, and I am directed by him to express his 
deep regret at his inability to be present and participate in the interesting 
ceremonies of this hour. 

Mr. Chairman, the convention which assembled at Chicago on the 7th day 
of July last was convened in the usual way, under a call issued in due form 
by the National Democratic Committee. There was nothing out of the or- 
dinary in the manner of its assembling, and nothing in the action of the 
committee under whose authority it was convoked to distinguish it from its 
predecessors. It was in all respects a regular national convention of the 
Democratic party. Every State and Territory in the Union, from Maine to 



Alaska, was represented by a full quota of delegates, and I may add with 
perfect truth that a more intelligent and thoroughly representative body of 
Democrats was never assembled upon the American continent The con- 
vention was called for two purposes: First, to formulate a platform declar- 
atory of party principles, and, secondly, to nominate candidates for President 
and Vice-President of the United States. Both these purposes were fully 
accomplished, and accomplished according to the usages that have been rec- 
ognized and the methods of procedure which have obtained in Democratic 
conventions for fifty years. The acts of the convention, therefore, were 
the acts of the Democratic party. Its work was done under the sovereign 
authority of the national organization; and that work was the direct out- 
growth of the calm, well-matured judgment of the people themselves, delib- 
erately expressed through their representatives chosen from among the wisest, 
most trusted, and patriotic of their fellow citizens in all the States. 

Although all I have said is literally true, yet the fact remains, of which 
every one is conscious, that there were extraneous circumstances leading up 
to the convention which attracted unusual attention to its deliberations and in- 
vested them with unusual importance. To such an extent was this true that 
I may say without exaggeration that no other political convention has been 
assembled in this country since the civil war upon which public attention 
was riveted with such intensity, or in the outcome of whose deliberations 
not only the American people but the nations of the earth felt such deep 
concern. We are all familiar with the circumstances to which 1 refer. 
The existing national administration was created by the Democratic party. 
It is the result of the great victory won in 1892. The campaign of that year 
was fought almost wholly on the tariff issue. It was a war waged against 
the excessive, monopolistic, trust-breeding schedules of the McKinley law. 
The Democratic party was united almost as one man against that law, and 
thousands of those who believed in the policy of protection when conserv- 
atively administered for the public good and not for private enrichment, pro- 
tested against this monstrous measure of extortion for individual and cor- 
porate emolument. Opposition to the McKinley law was the dominant issue 
of that campaign, and the measure was condemned by an overwhelming 
majority of the American people. But, Mr. Chairman, I desire to say that 
although the tariflf was made the issue of 1892, there were thousands of 
Democrats who then believed that a reform in our monetary system was 
of far greater importance than a reform in our revenue policies. I was 
among those who so believed. Those holding to that belief did not in any 
degree underestimate the importance of the tariflf issue — on the contrary, its 
importance was fully appreciated — but they believed nevertheless that the 
control of our fiscal aflfairs by a mercenary combination of Wall street 
bankers, dominated by foreign influences, was more perilous to national 
safety and more pernicious in its eflFect on national prosperity than all the 
tariflPs the miserly hand of gluttonous greed could write. However, we 
acquiesced in the decision of our party convention, accepted the issue as 
made, and as one man rallied with loyalty and alacrity to the standard of 
revenue reform. We rejoiced in Mr. Cleveland's election, and confidently 
expected, as we had a right to, that he would bring the tariflf question to a 


speedy settlement and strip monopoly of its opportunity to plunder the 
people. But in this just expectation we were doomed to disappointment. 
Instead of devoting himself to a prompt and wise solution of the important 
issue upon which he was elected, he incontinently thrust it aside and began, 
almost at the threshold of his administration, to exercise the great powers 
of his office to commit the country to a financial system inaugurated by the 
Republican party, and which the Democratic party had time and again con- 
demned in both State and national conventions. In the beginning of this 
attempt the masses of the people, disappointed and distressed, looked on in 
amazement. With absorbing interest and with constantly increasing resent- 
ment they watched the rapid development of events. As these events passed 
before them one by one in quick succession, and when they came to under- 
stand their full meaning and effect, resentment turned to wrath and protest 
rose into revolt. Then began within the Democratic party one of the most 
remarkable struggles that have ever occurred in the political history of this 
country. It was a struggle for mastery between the national administration 
and the great masses of plain people, who constitute the party which created 
that administration. The prize they fought for was the national convention. 
That convention was to determine whether the Democratic party should 
abide by the traditions of the fathers and adhere to its ancient faith, or 
whether it should obsequiously abandon the principles of true Democracy and 
become a pliant agent to advance the mercenary ends of an insolent plutoc- 
racy. The people won. They won a glorious victory. The full significance 
of their triumph can not be estimated at a glance. Suppose they had lost, 
what then? Suppose the Chicago convention had followed the servile example 
of the Republican convention, what then? If that had happened what hue 
would the skies now reveal to the uplifted eyes of anxious millions? Would the 
star of hope then have risen luminous to the meridian or have fallen with wan- 
ing light upon a clouded horizon? Upon what staff would the toiling millions 
in field and shop then have rested their tired hands? What bulwark of defense 
would then have stood between the great industrial and producing classes, who 
constitute the solid strength and safety of the State, and the combined 
aggressions of foreign money-changers and anglicized American millionaires? 
Upon what rock would the defenders of the Constitution, the champions of 
American ideas and the friends of American institutions have then anchored 
their hopes for the future? The paramount question before the country was 
and is — Shall this great Republic confess financial servitude to England, or 
act independently for itself? Shall this Government follow, or shall it lead? 
Shall it be a vassal or a sovereign? The Republican convention declared 
for foreign supremacy — for American subserviency. It upheld the British 
policy of a single gold standard, fraudulently fastened upon this country, and 
declared that we are utterly incapable of maintaining an independent policy 
of our own. Confessing that the gold standard is fraught with evil to our 
people, and that bimetallism is best for this nation and for the world, it yet 
declared that we are helpless — that we must stand idle, while our industries 
are prostrated and our people ruined, until England shall consent for us to 
lift our hands in our own defense. To this low state has Mammon brought 
the great party of the immortal Lincoln. For years plutocracy has been 


winding its slimy and poisonous coils around the Republican party, and it 
will strangle it to death as the sea serpents of old strangled the Trojan 
priest of Neptune and his sons. So also it laid its foul, corroding hand on 
the Democratic party— the party of Jefferson and Jackson — ^and used all its 
giant strength to bend it to its purposes. Within both parties there was a 
mighty struggle for supremacy between those who believe in the sovereignty 
of the people and those who believe in the divinity of pelf. Upon the Repub- 
lican party the hand of Marcus Aurelius Hanna has buckled a golden mail 
and sent it forth dedicated to the service of plutocracy in this free land 
of ours. But in the Democratic party, thank God, the people were triumphant. 
There the clutch of the money power, after a tremendous conflict, was broken. 
The priests of Mammon were scourged from the temple, and today, under the 
providence of high heaven, the old party, rejuvenated, stands forth, stronger and 
better than ever, the undaunted champion of constitutional liberty, popular 
rights, and national independence. The gage of battle thrown down at 
St. Louis was taken up at Chicago. Against English ideas we place American 
ideas; against an English policy we place an American policy; against foreign 
domination we place American independence; and against the selfish control of 
privileged classes we place the sovereignty of the people. The Republican 
platform is the antithesis of the Democratic platform. One stands for gold 
monometallism, the other for gold and silver bimetallism. One proposes that 
we wait upon other nations; the other that we act for ourselves. One proposes 
that the Government shall lean upon the bankers of New York and London; the 
other that the Secretary of the Treasury shall stand erect, confident and fearless, 
and assert his power to protect the rights of the people and the honor of the 
Nation. One proposes to continue the policy of issuing bonds, the other to 
stop it. One declares for a European alliance, the other is a declaration for 
American independence. Upon these all-important questions issue is joined be- 
tween the two great political parties of the Republic. Certainly there are other 
things of moment in which the people feel profound concern, but of all questions 
in the current political affairs of this day and generation the financial question 
rises to such supreme importance that all other subjects are practically excluded 
from present consideration. The Chicago convention declared in so many words 
that until this great, paramount issue was definitely settled, and settled 
right, the consideration of all other questions, upon which the people are 
seriously divided, should be postponed, or at least not pressed upon public or 
legislative attention. Around this one supreme issue the great battle of 1896 
is to be fought For the first time it has been fairly presented, without 
evasion or disguise. Both parties have taken position boldly. Both are con- 
fident and defiant. Between them the American people are the arbiters, and 
as such they are now to pass judgment upon the most important question pre- 
sented to them since the storm of civil war wrecked happy homes and 
left its bloody trail upon the land. They are to pass judgment upon a question 
which I profoundly believe affects, as no other question can, not only the present 
happiness and prosperity of the people, but the felicity of their children, the per- 
petuity of American institutions, and the well-being of all mankind. 

Mr. Chairman, in all great movements, in all concerted effort, when well 
directed, there must be leadership. A leader should be representative of the 

> - — 


cause be champions. He should be more than that — he should be in all essen- 
tial qualities, and in the highest degree, typical of those who invest him with 
the dignity and responsibility of leadership. 

The Chicago platform has been denounced as un-Democratic and the dele- 
gates composing the convention have been stigmatized as anarchists and 
sscialists. We have heard much of this from a certain class of papers and 
individuals. On Saturday last in my own State an ex-Democratic. ex- 
Supreme Court Judge characterized the Chicago platform as "a bundle of 
Populistic notions, saturated brimful with socialism and anarchy," and at 
the same time an ex-Democratic corporation attorney of some distinction de- 
clared that American citizenship meant government "not by the unthinking, 
unheeding masses, but by the elements which are guided by judgment and 
reason." "Unthinking, unheeding masses" is very good. "The elements which 
are guided by judgment and reason" is extra good. It is at least a. slight modi- 
fication of Vandcrbilt's arrogant anathema, "Damn the people," and for this 
small concession we ought no doubt to be duly grateful. Who composed the 
Chicago convention? From the Slate in which reside the gentlemen from whom 
I have quoted, the delegation sent to that convention was composed of farmers, 
lawyers, doctors, editors, merchants, manufacturers, and several of the most 
conspicuously successful business men in the Mississippi Valley. Among them 
also were eminent judges of high courts. Senators of the United States, Repre- 
sentatives in Congress, and the Treasurer and Governor of the State. That 
delegation was chosen by one of the greatest conventions ever assembled in that 
State, representing all classes of the very best people of the Commonwealth. 
What was true of Missouri was equally true of all the States. If these men 
could not speak for the Democratic party, who could? If these men do not 
understand Democracy, who are its exponents? But these are the men who are 
ridiculed as an unthinking, unheeding mob. who can not be (rusted in the 
conduct of public affairs, and these are the men who must give way to English 
toadies and the pampered minions of corporate rapacity, who arrogate to 
themselves all the virtues and wisdom of the world! Sir, the man who holds 
up to opprobrium such men as constituted the Chicago convention, who de- 
nounces them as cranks, anarchists, or socialists, or who in any respect impugns 
their intelligence or patriotism, does himself most rank injustice it he be not a 
knave, a slanderer, or a fool. That convention did indeed represent the 
"masses" of the people — the great industrial and producing masses of the 
people. It represented the men who plow and plant, who fatten herds, who toil 
in shops, who fell forests, and delve in mines. But are these to be regarded 
with contumely and addressed in terms of contempt? Why, sir, these are 
the men who feed and clothe the Nation; whose products make up the sum of 
our exports; who produce the wealth of the Republic; who bear the heaviest 
burdens in times of peace; who are ready always to give their life-blood for 
their country's flag — in short, these are the men whose sturdy arms and faithful 
hands uphold the stupendous fabric of our civilization. They are the bravest 
and the tenderest, the truest and the best. These are the men who spoke at 
Chicago in tones that rang out clear, and high, and strong. They were in 
earnest, and did not mean to be misunderstood. It was the voice of (rue 
Democracy. It was also the voice of deep conviction, spoken without fear. 


They demanded what they want, and they mean to have it They did not go to 
Wall street for their principles, nor over the sea for their inspiration. Their 
principles were inherited from the fathers and their inspiration sprang from an 
unconquerable love of country and of home. 

For a leader they chose one of their own — a plain man of the people. His 
whole life and life work identify him, in sympathy and interest, with those who 
represent the great industrial forces of the country. Among them he was 
horn and reared, and has lived and wrought all the days of his life. To their 
cause he has devoted all the splendid powers with which God endowed him. 
He has been their constant and fearless champion. They know him, and they 
trust him. Suave, yet firm; gentle, yet dauntless; warm-hearted, yet deliberate; 
confident and self-poised, but without vanity; learned in books and statecraft, 
but without pedantry or pretense; a superb orator, yet a man of the greatest 
caution and method; equipped with large experience in public affairs, true to 
his convictions, true to himself, and false to no man, William J. Bryan is a 
model American gentleman and a peerless leader of the people. This man is 
our leader. Under his banner and guided by his wisdom we will go forth to 
conquer. Let us rally everywhere, on hilltops and in the valleys, and strike 
for homes, our loved ones, and our native land. I have no doubt of victory. 
It is as sure to come as the rising of the sun. And it will come like a sunburst, 
scattering the mists, and the Nation, exultant and happy, will leap forward like 
a giant refreshed to that high destiny it was designed to accomplish. This 
man will be President. His administration will be a shining epoch in our 
history, for he will leave behind him a name made illustrious by great achieve- 
ments, and by deeds that will embalm him forever in the hearts and memory 
of his countrymen. 

Mr. Bryan, I esteem it a great honor, as it is most certainly a pleasure, 
to be made the instrument of informing you, as I now do, that you were nomi- 
nated for the office of President of the United States by the Democratic Na- 
tional Convention which assembled in Chicago in July last. I hand you this 
formal notice of your nomination, accompanied by a copy of the platform 
adopted by the convention, and upon that platform I have the honor to 
request your acceptance of the nomination tendered. You are the candidate 
of the Democratic party, but you are more than that — you are the candidate 
of all the people, without regard to party, who believe in the purposes your 
election is intended to accomplish. This battle must be fought upon ground 
high above the level of partisanship. I hope to see you unfurl the flag in the 
name of America and American manhood. In saying this I but repeat the 
expressed wish of the convention which nominated you. Do this, and though 
you will not have millions of money at your command, you will have millions 
of sturdy Americans at your back. Lead on, and we will follow. Who will 
not follow here is unworthy to lead in any cause. Lead on with unfaltering 
step, and may God's blessing attend you and His omnipotent hand crown you 
with success. 


The Wlowing is 

The Lcttet (rf NotlflcaUoo. 
William J. Bryan, Ncbraslm. 

The National Democratic Convention which convened in Chicago on July 
7th nominated you for the Presidency of the United States and we, as membert 
of the Notification Committee, appointed by that convention, are here to offi- 
cially inform you of the action thus taken. 

The circumstances attending your nomination cannot but afford you unqual- 
ified satisfaction, and must inspire enthusiasm throughout our country. You 
were selected by no clique, nor were you chosen as the result of any question- 
able combination. Those who nominated you were law-abiding, determined 
and honest representatives of their countrymen, and preferred you because 
of your exalted integrity, patriotism and ability. You are ripe in experience 
and judgment, in the prime of manhood, and enjoy the mental and physical 
characteristics essential to the great work which you have been required to 
undertake. You have been tried in public station. You have always done 
your entire duty. 

'While you are a Democrat and have, during your political career, been an 
ardent advocate of Democratic principles, you are now the official head of an 
organization, comprising not only those who have hitherto been Democrats, 
but also including within its membership numerous other patriotic Americans 
who have abandoned their former partisan associations, finding in our plat- 
form and candidate a policy and leadership adequate to save the Republic from 
impending danger. 

Your conduct has been such that you can, in this crisis, without doing 
violence to any opinions heretofore expressed, advocate the interests of the 
people. The profound satisfaction which we experience at your candidacy 
is of minor importance when compared with the knowledge that your election 
means the maintenance of an honest government, administered for the benefit 
of all and controlled only by intelligence conscientiously directed. 

The conflict now upon us has for years been foreshadowed. Its impor- 
tance cannot be questioned. The prevalence within party lines of vitally diver- . 
gent views, especially upon financial issues, has long been apparent. The vain 
hope has been indulged that fortuitous circumstances would develop condi- 
tions rendering definite action unnecessary. Unmeaning platforms, words 
susceptible of interpretation according to the preference of the speaker or audit- 
or, have been employed by the political parties of the United Slates. Supposed 
expediency has prevented the use of plain and positive language until political 
duplicity has excited universal distrust. In this campaign the Republican party 
pledges its adherents to the gold standard and commits the destiny of the* 
United States to the keeping of foreign financial syndicates and their agents 
here, and rests confident in the belief that the sordid selfishness by which it is 
controlled, cannot be overcome. Its platform admits the evils of a gold stand- 
ard, but confesses the party's inability to afford relief and announces supine 
submission to a policy which pretends to condemn. Patriotic courage is more 
than a reminiscence. The Democratic party declines the unmanly suggestion 
that the people of the United States cannot escape oppression save at the will 


of the oppressor. Its declaration of principles not only evinces faith in the 
bimetallism of the Constitution, but proclaims that this Government is com- 
petent to declare and maintain its own policy without reference to the caprices 
or wishes of any other power. It denounces as un-American the theory that we 
are not independent in matters financial, and contends that there cannot be 
any freedom here if fiscal policies are to be dictated from abroad. To doubt 
your election is to deny the manhood of our electors, to concede that the pro- 
ducers of the United States, those who toil, those who add to the wealth of the 
land, will vote to perpetuate alien dominancy, and will permit the continuance 
of a policy pauperizing and demeaning, is to assume, in the face of conclusive 
proof to the contrary, ignorance and degradation. 

We are convinced that victory awaits the people and their just cause and 
assure you of the earnest support of an overwhelming majority of your fellow 
citizens. We are, sir, respectfully, 

Stephen M. White, of California, Chairman. 

Stephen M. White, California, chairman; J. J. Willette, Alabama; 
Charles S. Collins, Arkansas; J. J. Dwyer, California; T. J. O'Don- 
nell, Colorado; William Kennedy, Connecticut; J. F. Saulsbury, Del- 
aware; G. B. Sparkman, Florida; J. T. Hill, Georgia; D. S. Hillard, 
Idaho; William H. Green, Illinois; U. S. Jackson, Indiana; L. T. 
Genung, Iowa; Frank Bacon, Kansas; John E. Garner, Kentucky; 
Victor Maubarret, Louisiana; Fred W. Plaisted, Maine; John Hanni- 
bal, Maryland; James Donovan, Massachusetts; F. W. Hubbard and 
William F. McKnight, Michigan; B. F. Voreis, Minnesota; R. H, 
Henry, Mississippi; Hugh J. Brady, Missouri; Paul A. Fusz, Montana; 
John A. Creighton, Nebraska; Jacob Klein, Nevada; Herbert J. Jones, 
New Hampshire; William V. Del, New Jersey; Elliott Danforth, New 
York; P. N. Pearson, North Carolina; W. N. Roach, North Dakota; 
L. E. Holden, Ohio; Charles Nickell, Oregon; J. N. Garman, Penn- 
sylvania; George W. Greene, Rhode Island; E. P. McSweeney, South 
Carolina; S. V. Arnold, South Dakota; John K. Shields, Tennessee; 
J. L. Shepard, Texas; Fred J. Kissel, Utah; Rollin Childs, Vermont; 
T. M. Murphy, Virginia; James F. Girton, Washington; L. E. Tierney, 
West Virginia; James E. Malone, Wisconsin; M. L. Blake, Wyoming; 
W. E. Jones, Arizona; Charles D. Rogers, Alaska; George Killeen, 
District of Columbia; D. M. Haley, Indian Territory; Demetrius 
.Chaves, New Mexico; L. G. Niblack, Oklahoma. 

Following the determination referred to in a former letter, I read 
the speech, only laying the manuscript aside when near the conclu- 
sion. The delivery was a disappointment to those present, as I knew 
it would be. The World, speaking of it the next morning, said : 

To put it in blunt, sincere language, the great Bryan demonstration at the 
Madison Square Garden was a disappointment. Mr. Bryan read a speech tem- 


pered in tone, and beautifully phrased, but failed to fire the great multitude 
who came to see and hear him. When the young orator rose to speak the 
temperature in the building was 97 degrees Fahrenheit, but before he finished 
the thermometer showed a fall of two degrees. 

The Journal, though giving a more friendly account of the recep- 
tion accorded the speech, said : 

It cannot be denied that the audience was disappointed in the circumstance 
that Mr. Bryan read his speech. Nevertheless, he was listened to with the 
deepest attention and the salient points of the speech were received with tumul- 
tuous applause. 

The reading of the speech was much discussed in both a serious 
and a comic vein by the opposition papers. The incident gave rise 
to a number of cuts and caricatures, one of the best of which repre- 
sented me as a boy, reading a long roll of manuscript, while father 
Knickerbocker was returning to his house with a complacent look 
upon his face and a fire extinguisher under his arm. Beneath the 
picture were the significant words, "A false alarm." Many who at 
the time doubted the propriety of reading the speech afterwards com- 
mended the course pursued. The Journal came to my defense and 
showed that Abraham Lincoln had followed the same course when he 
made his New York speech prior to the campaign of i860. The accept- 
ance speech, which was afterwards used as a campaign document, is 
given in full. 

Madison Sqtsare Garden Speech* 

Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Committee and Fellow Citizens: I 
shall, at a future day and in a formal letter, accept the nomination which 
is now tendered by the Notification Committee, and I shall at that time 
touch upon the issues presented by the platform. It is fitting, however, 
that at this time, in the presence of those here assembled, I speak at some 
length in regard to the campaign upon which we are now entering. We do not 
underestimate the forces arrayed against us, nor are we unmindful of the 
importance of the struggle in which we are engaged; but, relying for success 
upon the righteousness of our cause, we shall defend with all possible vigor the 
positions taken by our party. We are not surprised that some of our opponents, 
in the absence of better argument, resort to abusive epithets, but they may rest 
assured that no language, however violent, no invectives, however vehement, 
will lead us to depart a single hair's breadth from the course marked out by the 
National Convention. The citizen, either public or private, who assails the 
character and questions the patriotism of the delegates assembled in the Chicago 
convention, assails the character and questions the patriotism of the millioni 
who have arrayed themselves under the banner there raised. 

It has been charged by men standing high in business and political circles 
that our platform is a menace to private security and public safety; and it has 
been asserted that those whom I have the honor for the time being, to represent, 


not only meditate an attack upon the rights of property, but are the foes both of 
social order and national honor. 

Those who stand upon the Chicago platform are prepared to make known and 
to defend every motive which influences them, every purpose which animates them, 
and every hope which inspires them. They understand the genius of our institu- 
tions, they are staunch supporters of the form of government under which we live, 
and they build their faith upon foundations laid by the fathers. Andrew Jackson 
has stated, with admirable clearness and with an emphasis which cannot be 
surpassed, both the duty and the sphere of government. He said: 

Distinctions in society will always exist under every Just goyernment Kqoality of 
talents, of education or of wealth, cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full 
enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy and 
virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law. 

We yield to none in our devotion to the doctrine just enunciated. Our 
campaign has not for its object the reconstruction of society. We cannot 
insure to the vicious the fruits of a virtuous life; we would not invade the home 
of the provident in order to supply the wants of the spendthrift; we do not 
propose to transfer the rewards of industry to the lap of indolence. Property 
is and will remain the stimulus to endeavor and the compensation for toil. We 
believe, as asserted in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created 
equal; but that does not mean that all men are or can be equal in possessions, 
in ability or in merit; it simply means that all shall stand equal before the law, 
and that government officials shall not, in making, construing or enforcing the 
law, discriminate between citizens. 

I assert that property rights, as well as the rights of persons, are safe in 

the hands of the common people. Abraham Lincoln, in his message sent to 

Congress in December, 1861, said: 

No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poT«rty; 
none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. 

I repeat his language with unqualified approval, and join with him in the 

warning which he added, namely: 

Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already poness, 
and which power, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the doors of advance- 
ment against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them* till 
all of liberty shall be lost. 

Those who daily follow the injunction, "In the sweat of thy face shalt 
thou eat bread," are now, as they ever have been, the bulwark of law and order — 
the source of our nation's greatness in time of peace, and its surest defenders 
in time of war. 

But I have only read a part of Jackson's utterance — let me give you his 

But when the laws undertake to add to those natural and Just advantages artificial 
distinctions— to grant titles, gratuities and exclusive privileges— to make the rich richer 
and the potent more powerful— the humble members of society— the farmers, me- 
chanics and the laborers— who have neither the time nor the means of securing like 
favors for themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. 

Those who support the Chicago platform endorse all of the quotation from 
Jackson — the latter part as well as the former part 

We are not surprised to find arrayed against us those who are the bene- 
ficiaries of government favoritism — they have read our platform. Nor arc we 





^^^^ /^ ^:2^?^ 




surprised to learn that we must in this campaign face the hostility of those who 
find a pecuniary advantage in advocating the doctrine of non-interference when 
great aggregations of wealth are trespassing upon the rights of individuals. We 
welcome such opposition — it is the highest endorsement which could be be- 
stowed upon us. We are content to have the co-operation of those who desire 
to have the government administered without fear or favor. It is not the wish 
of the general public that trusts should spring into existence and override the 
weaker members of society; it is not the wish of the general public that these 
trusts should destroy competition and then collect such tax as they will from 
those who are at their mercy; nor is it the fault of the general public that the 
instrumentalities of government have been so often prostituted to purposes of 
private gain. Those who stand upon the Chicago platform believe that the 
government should not only avoid wrongdoing, but that it should also prevent 
wrongdoing; and they believe that the law should be enforced alike against all 
enemies of the public weal. They do not excuse petit larceny, but they declare 
that grand larceny is equally a crime; they do not defend the occupation of the 
highwayman who robs the unsuspecting traveler, but they include among the 
transgressors those who, through the more polite and less hazardous means of 
legislation, appropriate to their own use the proceeds of the toil of others. The 
commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," thundered from Sinai and reiterated in 
the legislation of all nations, is no respecter of persons. It must be applied to 
the great as well as to the small; to the strong as well as to the weak; to the 
corporate person created by law as well as to the person of flesh and blood 
created by the Almighty. No government is worthy of the name which is not 
able to protect from every arm uplifted for his injury the humblest citizen who 
lives beneath the flag. It follows as a necessary conclusion that vicious legisla- 
tion must be remedied by the people who suffer from the effects of such legisla- 
tion, and not by those who enjoy its benefits. 

The Chicago platform has been condemned by some because it dissents 
from an opinion rendered by the Supreme Court declaring the income tax law 
unconstitutional. Our critics even go so far as to apply the name anarchist 
to those who stand upon that plank of the platform. It must be remembered 
that we expressly recognize the binding force of that decision so long as it 
stands as a part of the law of the land. There is in the platform no suggestion 
of an attempt to dispute the authority of the Supreme Court. The party is sim- 
ply pledged to use **all the constitutional power which remains after that de- 
cision, or which may come from its reversal by the Court as it may hereafter 
be constituted." Is there any disloyalty in that pledge? For a hundred years 
the Supreme Court of the United States has sustained the principle which 
underlies the income tax. Some twenty years ago this same Court sustained, 
without a dissenting voice, an income tax law almost identical with the one 
recently overthrown. Has not a future court as much right to return to the 
judicial precedents of a century as the present Court had to depart from them? 
When courts allow rehcarings they admit that error is possible; the late decision 
against the income tax was rendered by a majority of one after a rehearing. 

While the money question overshadows all other questions in importance, 

I desire it distinctly understood that I shall offer no apology for the income 

tax plank of the Chicago platform. The last income tax law sought to appor- 


tion the burdens of government more equitably among those who enjoy the 
protection of the Government. At present the expenses of the Federal Govern- 
ment, collected through internal revenue taxes and import duties, are especially 
burdensome upon the poorer classes of society. A law which collects from 
some citizens more than their share of the taxes and collects from other citi- 
zens less than their share is simply an indirect means of transferring one man's 
property to another man's pocket, and, while the process may be quite satis- 
factory to the men who escape just taxation, it can never be satisfactory to 
those who are overburdened. The last income tax law, with its exemption 
provisions, when considered in connection with other methods of taxation in 
force, was not unjust to the possessors of large incomes, because they were not 
compelled to pay a total Federal tax greater than their share. The income tax 
is not new, nor is it based upon hostility to the rich. The system is emploj*ed 
in several of the most important nations of Europe, and every income tax 
law now upon tlie statute books in any land, so far as I have been able to ascer- 
tain, contains an exemption clause. While the collection of an income tax in 
other countries does not make it necessary for this Nation to adopt the system, 
yet it ought to moderate the language of those who denounce the income tax 
as an assault upon the well-to-do. 

Not only shall I refuse to apologize for the advocacy of an income tax law 
by the National Convention, but I shall also refuse to apologize for the exercise 
by it of the right to dissent from a decision of the Supreme Court. In a gov- 
ernment like ours every public official is a public servant, whether he holds 
office by election or by appointment, whether he serves for a term of years or 
during good behavior, and the people have a right to criticise his official acts. 
"Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government exists in 
jealousy and not in confidence" — these are the words of Thomas Jefferson, and 
I submit that they present a truer conception of popular government than that 
entertained by those who would prohibit an unfavorable comment upon a court 
decision. Truth will vindicate itself; only error fears speech. No public 
official who conscientiously discharges his duty as he sees it will desire to 
deny to those whom he serves the right to discuss his official conduct. 

Now let me ask you to consider the paramount question of this campaign — 
the money question. It is scarcely necessary to defend the principle of bimet- 
allism. No national party during the entire history of the United States has 
ever declared against it, and no party in this campaign has had the temerity 
to oppose it. Three parties — the Democratic, Populist, and Silver parties — 
have not only declared for bimetallism, but have outlined the specific legislation 
necessary to restore silver to its ancient position by the side of gold. The 
Republican platform expressly declares that bimetallism is desirable when it 
pledges the Republican party to aid in securing it as soon as the assistance of 
certain foreign nations can be obtained. Those who represented the minority 
sentiment in the Chicago Convention opposed the free coinage of silver by the 
United States by independent action, on the ground that, in their judgment, it 
"would retard or entirely prevent the establishment of international bimetallism, 
to which the eflforts of the Government should be steadily directed." When 
they asserted that the efforts of the Government should be steadily directed 
toward the establishment of international bimetallism, they condemned mono- 


tneUllism. The gold standard has been weighed in the balance and found 
wanting. Take from it the powerful support of the money- own in;; and the 
money-changing classes and it cannot stand for one day in any nation in the 
world. It was fastened upon the United Stales without disctissioa before the 
people, and its friends have never yet been willing to risk a verdict before the 
voters upon that issue. 

There can be no sympathy or co-operation between the advocates of a uni- 
versal gold standard and the advocates of bimetallism. Between bimetallism — 
whether independent or international — and the gold standard there is an im- 
passable gulf. Is this quadrennial agitation in favor ot international bimetal- 
lism conducted in good faith, or do our opponents really desire to maintain the 
gold standard permanently? Are they willing to confess the superiority of a 
double standard when joined in by the leading nations of the world, or do they 
still insist that gold is the only metal suitable for standard money among civ- 
ilized nations? If they are in fact desirous of securing bimetallism, we may 
expect them to point out Ihe evils of a gold standard and defend bimetallism as 
a system. If, on the other hand, they are bending their energies toward the 
permanent establishment of a gold standard under cover of a declaration in 
favor of international bimetallism, I am justified in suggesting that honest 
money cannot be expected at the hands of those who deal dishonestly with 
the American people. 

What is the test of honesty in money? It must certainly be found in the 
purchasing power of the dollar. An absolutely honest dollar would not vary 
in its general purchasing power; it would be absolutely stable when measured 
by average prices. A dollar which increases in purchasing power is just as 
dishonest as a dollar which decreases in purchasing power. Prof. Laughiin, 
now of the University of Chicago, and one of the highest gold-slandard author- 
ities, in his work on bimetallism not only admits that gold does not remain 
absolutely stable in value, but expressly asserts "that there is no such thing 
as a standard of value for future payments, either in gold or silver, which 
remains absolutely invariable." He even suggests that a multiple standard, 
wherein the unit is "based upon (he selling prices of a number of articles of 
general consumption," would be a more just standard than either gold or silver, 
or both, because "'a long time contract would (hereby be paid at its maturity 
by the same purchasing power as was given in the beginning," 

It cannot be successfully claimed that monometallism or bimetallism, or 
any other system, gives an absolutely just standard of value. Under both 
monometallism and bimetallism the Government fixes the weight and fineness 
of the dollar, invests it with legal tender qualities, and then opens the mints 
to its unrestricted coinage, leaving the purchasing power of the dollar to be 
determined by the number of dollars. Bimetallism is better than monometal- 
lism, not because it gives us a perfect dollar — that is, a dollar absolutely unvary- 
ing in its general purchasing power — but because it makes a nearer approach 
to stability, to honesty, to justice, than a gold standard possibly can. Prior to 
1873; when there were enough open mints to permit all the gold and silver 
available for coinage to find entrance into the world's volume of standard 
money, the United States might have maintained a gold standard with less 
injury to the people of this country; but now, when each *tep toward a universal 


gold standard enhances the purchasing power of gold, depresses prices, and 
transfers to the pockets of the creditor class an unearned increment, the influ- 
ence of this great nation must not be thrown upon the side of gold unless we 
are prepared to accept the natural and legitimate consequences of such an act. 
Any legislation which lessens the world's stock of standard monej' increases 
the exchangeable value of the dollar; therefore, the crusade against silver must 
inevitably raise the purchasing power of money and lower the money value of 
all other forms of property. 

Our opponents sometimes admit that it was a mistake to demonetize sil- 
ver, but insist that we should submit to present conditions rather than return 
to the bimetallic system. They err in supposing that we have reached the 
end of the evil results of a gold standard; we have not reached the end. The 
injury is a continuing one, and no person can say how long the world is to 
suffer from the attempt to make gold the only standard money. The same 
influences which arc now operating to destroy silver in the United States will, 
if successful here, be turned against other silver-using countries, and each new 
convert to the gold standard will add to the general distress. So long as the 
scramble for gold continues, prices must fall, and a general fall in prices is but 
another definition of hard times. 

Our opponents, while claiming entire disinterestedness for themselves, 
have appealed to the selfishness of nearly every class of society. Recognizing 
the disposition of the individual voter to consider the effect of any proposed 
legislation upon himself, we present to the American people the financial policy 
outlined in the Chicago platform, believing that it will result in the greatest 
good to the greatest number. 

The farmers are opposed to the gold standard because they have felt its 
effects. Since they sell at wholesale and buy at retail they have lost more than 
they have gained by falling prices, and, besides this, they have found that cer- 
tain fixed charges have not fallen at all. Taxes have not been perceptibly 
decreased, although it requires more of farm products now than formerly to 
secure the money with which to pay taxes. Debts have not fallen. The 
farmer who owed $i,ooo is still compelled to pay $i,ooo, although it may be 
twice as diflTicult as formerly to obtain the dollars with which to pay the debt. 
Railroad rates have not been reduced to keep pace with falling prices, and be- 
sides these items there are many more. The farmer has thus found it more 
and more difficult to live. Has he not a just complaint against the gold 

The wage earners have been injured by a gold standard, and have ex- 
pressed themselves upon the subject with great emphasis. In February, 1895, 
a petition asking for the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coin- 
age of gold and silver at 16 to i was signed by the representatives of all, or nearly 
all, the leading labor organizations and presented to Congress. Wage-earners 
know that while a gold standard raises the purchasing power of the dollar, 
it also makes it more difficult to obtain possession of the dollar; they know that 
employment is less permanent, loss of work more probable, and re-employment 
less certain. A gold standard encourages the hoarding of money, because 
money is rising; it also discourages enterprise and paralyzes industry. 
On the other hand, the restoration of bimetallism will discourage hoarding, 


because, when prices are steady or rising, money cannot afford to lie idle in the 
bank vaults. The farmers and wage-earners together constitute a considerable 
majority of the people of the country. Why should their interests be ignored 
in considering financial legislation? A monetary system which is pecuniarily 
advantageous to a few syndicates has far less to commend it than a system 
which would give hope and encouragement to those who create the nation*s 

Our opponents have made a special appeal to those who hold fire and life 
insurance policies, but these policy holders know that, since the total premiums 
received exceed the total losses paid, a rising standard must be of more benefit 
to the companies than to the policy holders. 

Much solicitude has been expressed by our opponents for the depositors in 
savings banks. They constantly parade before these depositors the advantages 
of a gold standard, but these appeals will be in vain, because savings bank 
depositors know that under a gold standard there is increasing danger that they 
will lose their deposits because of the inability of the banks to collect their assets; 
and they still further know that, if the gold standard is to continue indefinitely, 
they may be compelled to withdraw their deposits in order to pay living 

It is only necessary to note the increasing number of failures in order to 
know that a gold standard is ruinous to merchants and manufacturers. These 
business men do not make their profits from the people from whom they 
borrow money, but from the people to whom they sell their goods. If the 
people cannot buy, retailers cannot sell, and, if retailers cannot sell, wholesale 
merchants and manufacturers must go into bankruptcy. 

Those who hold, as a permanent investment, the stock of railroads and of 
other enterprises — I do not include those who speculate in stocks or use stock 
holdings as a means of obtaining an inside advantage in construction con- 
tracts — are injured by a gold standard. The rising dollar destroys the earning 
power of these enterprises without reducing their liabilities, and, as dividends 
cannot be paid until salaries and fixed charges have been satisfied, the stock- 
holders must bear the burden of hard times. 

Salaries in business occupations depend upon business conditions, and the 
gold standard both lessens the amount and threatens the permanency of such 

Official salaries, except the salaries of those who hold office for life, must, 
in the long run, be adjusted to the conditions of those who pay the taxes, and if 
the present financial policy continues we must expect the contest between 
the taxpayer and the taxeatcr to increase in bitterness. 

The professional classes — in the main — derive their support from the pro- 
ducing classes, and can only enjoy prosperity when there is prosperity among 
those who create wealth. 

I have not attempted to describe the effect of the gold standard upon all 
classes — in fact, I have only had time to mention a few — but each person will 
be able to apply the principles stated to his own occupation. 

It must also be remembered that it is the desire of people generally to 
convert their earnings into real or personal property. This being true, in 
considering any temporary advantage which may come from a system under 


which the dollar rises in its purchasing power, it must not be forgotten that 
the dollar cannot buy more than formerly unless property sells for less than 
formerly. Hence, it will be seen that a large portion of those who may find 
some pecuniary advantage in a gold standard will discover that their losses 
exceed their gains. 

It is sometimes asserted by our opponents that a bank belongs to the 
debtor class, but this is not true of any solvent bank. Every statement pub- 
lished by a solvent bank shows that the assets exceed the liabilities. That is to 
say, while the bank owes a large amount of money to its depositors, it not only 
has enough on hand in money and notes to pay its depositors, but, in addition 
thereto, has enough to cover its capital and surplus. When the dollar is rising 
in value slowly, a bank may, by making short-time loans and taking good 
security, avoid loss; but when prices are falling rapidly, the bank is apt to lose 
more because of bad debts than it can gain by the increase in the purchasing 
power of its capital and surplus. 

Some bankers, however, combine the business of a bond broker with the 
ordinary banking business, and these may make enough in the negotiation 
of loans to offset the losses arising in legitimate banking business. As long 
as human nature remains as it is, there will always be danger that, unless 
restrained by public opinion or legal enactment, those who see a pecuniary 
profit for themselves in a certain condition may yield to the temptation to 
bring about that condition. JefTerson has stated that one of the main duties of 
government is to prevent men from injuring one another, and never was that 
duty more important than it is today. It is not strange that those who have 
made a profit by furnishing gold to the Government in the hour of its extremity 
favor a financial policy which will keep the Government dependent upon them. 
I believe, however, that I speak the sentiment of the vast majority of the peo- 
ple of the United States when I say that a wise financial policy administered in 
behalf of all the people would make our Government independent of any com- 
bination of financiers, foreign or domestic. 

Let me say a word, now, in regard to certain persons who are pecuniarily 
benefited by a gold standard, and who favor it, not from a desire to trespass 
upon the rights of others, but because the circumstances which surround them 
blind them to the effect of the gold standard upon others. I shall ask you to 
consider the language of two whose long public service and high 
standing in the party to which they belong will protect them from adverse criti- 
cism by our opponents. In 1869 Senator Sherman said: 

The contraction of tho currency is a far more distressing operation than Senators 
suppose. Our own and other nations have gone through that operation before. It is 
not possible to take that voyage without the sorest distress. To every person, except a 
capitalist out of debt, or a salaried officer, or annuitant, it is a period of loss, danger, 
lassitude of trade, fall of wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy and disaster. 
It means ruin to all dealers whose debts are twice their business capital, though 
one-third less than their actual property. It means the fall of all agricultural production 
without any great reduction of taxes. What prudent man would dare to build a 
house, a railroad, a factory, or a barn with this certain fact before him? 

As I have said before, the salaried officer referred to must be the man 
whose salary is fixed for life, and not the man whose salary depends upon busi- 
ness conditions. When Mr. Sherman describes contraction of the currency as 

> — le - i M 


disastrous to all the people except the capitalist out of debt and those who 
stand in a position similar to his, he is stating a truth which must be apparent 
to every person who will give the matter careful consideration. Mr. Sherman 
was at that time speaking of the contraction of the volume of paper currency, 
but the principle which he set forth applies, if there is a contraction of the 
volume of the standard money of the world. 

Mr. Blaine discussed the same principle in connection with the demonetiza- 
tion of silver. Speaking in the House of Representatives on the 7th of Febru- 
ary, 1878, he said: 

I believe the struggle now going on In this country and other countries for a single 
gold standard would, if successful, produce widespread disaster in and throughout the 
commercial world. The destruction of silver as money, and the establishing of gold 
as the sole unit of value must have a ruinous effect on all forms of property, ex- 
cept those investments which yield a fixed return in money. These would be enormously 
enhanced In value, and would gain a disproportionate and unfair advantage over every 
other species of property. 

Is it strange that the "holders of investments which yield a fixed return 
in money" can regard the destruction of silver with complacency. May we 
not expect the holders of other forms of property to protest against giving 
to money a "disproportionate and unfair advantage over every other species of 
property?" If the relatively few whose wealth consists largely in fixed invest- 
ments have a right to use the ballot to enhance the value of their investments, 
have not the rest of the people the right to use the ballot to protect themselves 
from the disastrous consequences of a rising standard? The people who must 
purchase money with the products of toil stand in a position entirely different 
from the position of those who own money or receive a fixed income. The 
well-being of the nation — aye, of civilization itself — depends upon the prosperity 
of the masses. What shall it profit us to have a dollar which grows more valu- 
able every day if such a dollar lowers the standard of "civilization and brings 
distress to the people? What shall it profit us if, in trying to raise our credit 
by increasing the purchasing power of our dollar, we destroy our ability to 
pay the debts already contracted by lowering the purchasing power of the 
products with which those debts must be paid? If it is asserted, as it constantly 
is asserted, that the gold standard will enable us to borrow more money from 
abroad, I reply that the restoration of bimetallism will restore the parity be- 
tween money and property, and thus permit an era of prosperity which will 
enable the American people to become loaners of money instead of perpetual 
borrowers. Even if we desire to borrow, how long can we continue borrowing 
under a system which, by lowering the value of property, weakens the founda- 
tion upon which credit rests? 

Even the holders of fixed investments, though they gain an advantage 
from the appreciation of the dollar, certainly see the injustice of the legislation 
which gives them this advantage over those whose incomes depend upon the 
value of property and products. If the holders of fixed investments will not 
listen to arguments based upon justice and equity, I appeal to them to consider 
the interests of posterity. We do not live for ourselves alone; our labor, our 
self-denial, and our anxious care — all these are for those who are to come after 
us as much as for ourselves, but we cannot protect our children beyond the 
period of our lives. Let those who are now reaping advantage from a vicious 


financial system remember that in the years to come their own children and 
their children's children may, through the operation of this same system, be 
made to pay tribute to the descendants of those who are wronged today. 

As against the maintenance of a gold standard, either permanently or until 
other nations can be united for its overthrow, the Chicago platform presents a 
clear and emphatic demand for the immediate restoration of the free and 
unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the present legal ratio of i6 to i, with- 
out waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We are not asking that 
a new experiment be tried; we are insisting upon a return to a financial policy 
approved by the experience of history and supported by all the prominent 
statesmen of our nation from the days of the first president down to 1873. 
When we ask that our mints be opened to the free and unlimited coinage of sil- 
ver into full legal tender money, we are simply asking that the same mint 
privileges be accorded to silver that are now accorded to gold. When we ask 
that this coinage be at the ratio of 16 to i, we simply ask that our gold coins 
and the standard silver dollar — which, be it remembered, contains the same 
amount of pure silver as the first silver dollar coined at our mints — retain their 
present weight and fineness. 

The theoretical advantage of the bimetallic system is best stated by a Euro- 
pean writer on political economy, who suggests the following illustration: A 
river fed from two sources is more uniform in volume than a river fed from 
one source — the reason being that when one of the feeders is swollen the other 
may be low; whereas, a river which has but one feeder must rise or fall with 
that feeder. So in the case of bimetallism; the volume of metallic money re- 
ceives contributions from both the gold mines and the silver mines, and there- 
fore varies less, and the dollar resting upon two metals is less changeable in its 
purchasing power than the dollar which rests upon one metal only. 

If there are two kinds of money, the option must rest either with the 
debtor or with the creditor. Assuming that their rights are equal, we must 
look at the interest of society in general in order to determine to which side 
the option should be given. Under the bimetallic system gold and silver are 
linked together by law at a fixed ratio, and any person or persons owning any 
quantity of cither metal can have the same converted into full legal-tender 
money. If the creditor has the right to choose the metal in which payment 
shall be made, it is reasonable to suppose that he will require the debtor to pay 
in the dearer metal if there is any perceptible difference between the bullion 
values of the metals. This new demand created for the dearer metal will make 
that metal dearer still, while the decreased demand for the cheaper metal will 
make that metal cheaper still. If, on the other hand, the debtor exercises the 
option, it is reasonable to suppose that he will pay in the cheaper metal if one 
metal is perceptibly cheaper than the other; but the demand thus created for the 
cheaper metal will raise its price, while the lessened demand for the dearer metal 
will lower its price. In other words, when the creditor has the option, the 
metals are drawn apart: whereas, when the debtor has the option, the metals 
are held together approximately at the ratio fixed by law, provided the demand 
created is sufificient to absorb all of both metals presented at the mint. Society 
is. therefore, interested in having the option exercised by the debtor. Indeed, 
there can be no such thing as real bimetallism unless the option is exercised by 



the debtor. The exercise of the option by the debtor compels the creditor 

classes, whether domestic or foreign, to exert themselves to maintain the parity 

between gold and silver at the legal ratio, whereas they might find a profit in 

driving one of the metals to a premium if they could then demand the dearer 

metal. The right of the debtor to choose the coin in which payment shall be 

made extends to obligations due from the government as well as to contracts 

between individuals. A government obligation is simply a debt due from all 

the people to one of the people, and it is impossible to justify a policy which 

makes the interests of the one person who holds the obligation superior to the 

rights of the many who must be taxed to pay it. When, prior to 1873, silver 

was at a premium,, it was never contended that national honor required the 

payment of government obligations in silver, and the Matthews resolution, 

adopted by Congress in 1878, expressly asserted the right of the United States 

to redeem coin obligations in standard silver dollars as well as in gold coin. 

Upon this subject the Chicago platform reads: 

We are opposed to the policy and practice of surrendering to the holders of the 
obligations of the United States the option reserved by law to the GoYcrnment of 
redeeming such obligations In either silver coin or gold coin. 

It is constantly assumed by some that the United States notes, commonly 
called greenbacks, and the treasury notes issued under the act of 1890, are 
responsible for the recent drain upon the gold reserve, but this assumption is 
entirely without foundation. Secretary Carlisle appeared before the House 
Committee on Appropriations on January 21, 1895, and I quote from the 
printed report of his testimony before the committee: 

Mr. Sibley: I wonld like to aslc you (perhaps not entirely connected with the 
matter under discussion) what objection there could be to having the option of re- 
deeming either in silver or gold lie with the Treasury instead of the note holder? 

Secretary Carlisle: If that policy had been adopted at the beginning of resump* 
tion— and I am not saying this for the purpose of criticising the action of any of my pre- 
decessors, or anybody else— bnt if the policy of reserving to the Government, at the 
beginning of resumption, the option of redeeming in gold or silver all its paper pre- 
sented, I believe it would have worked beneficially, and there would have been no 
trouble growing out of it, but the Secretaries of the Treasury from the beginning of 
resumption have pursued a policy of redeemlDg in gold or silver, at the option of 
the holder of the paper, and if any Secretary had afterward attempted to change that 
policy and force silver upon a man who wanted gold, or gold upon a man who wanted 
silver, and especially if ho had made that attempt at such a critical period as we 
have had in the last two years, my judgment is it would have been very disastrous. 

I do not agree with the Secretary that it was wise to follow a bad prece- 
dent, but from his answer it will be seen that the fault does not lie with the 
greenbacks and treasury notes, but rather with the executive officers who have 
seen fit to surrender a right which should have been exercised for the protec- 
tion of the interests of the people. This executive action has already been 
made the excuse for the issue of more than $250,000,000 in bonds, and it is im- 
possible to estimate the amount of bonds which may hereafter be issued if this 
policy is continued. We are told that any attempt upon the part of the Gov- 
ernment at this time to redeem its obligations in silver would put a premium 
upon gold, but why should it? The Bank of France exercises the right to re- 
deem all bank paper in either gold or silver, and yet France mamtains the 
parity between gold and silyer at the ratio of I5)'2 to i, and retains in circula- 
tion more silver per capita than we do in the United States. 



It may be further answered that our opponents have suggested no feasible 
plan for avoiding the dangers which they fear. The retirement of the green- 
backs and treasury notes would not protect the Treasury, because the same 
policy which now leads the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem all government 
paper in gold, when gold is demanded, will require the redemption of all silver 
dollars and silver certificates in gold, if the greenbacks and treasury notes arc 
withdrawn from circulation. More than this, if the Government should retire 
its paper and throw upon the banks the necessity of furnishing coin redemption, 
the banks would exercise the right to furnish either gold or silver. In other 
words, they would exercise the option, just as the Government ought to exer- 
cise it now. The Government must either exercise the right to redeem its 
obligations in silver when silver is more convenient, or it must retire all the 
silver and silver certificates from circulation and leave nothing but gold as 
legal tender money. Are our opponents willing to outline a financial system 
which will carry out their policy to its legitimate conclusion, or will they con- 
tinue to cloak their designs in ambiguous phrases? 

There is an actual necessity for bimetallism as well as a theoretical defense 
of it. During the last twenty-three years legislation has been creating an addi- 
tional demand for gold, and this law-created demand has resulted in increasing 
the purchasing power of each ounce of gold. The restoration of bimetallism in 
the United States will take away from gold just so much of its purchasing 
power as was added to it by the demonetization of silver by the United States. 
The silver dollar is now held up to the gold dollar by legal-tender laws and not 
by redemption in gold, because the standard silver dollars are not now redeem- 
able in gold either in law or by administrative policy. 

We contend that free and unlimited coinage by the United States alone 
will raise the bullion value of silver to its coinage value, and thus make silver 
bullion worth $1.29 per ounce in gold throughout the world. This proposition 
is in keeping with natural laws, not in defiance of them. The best-known law 
of commerce as the law of supply and demand. We recognize this law and 
build our argument upon it. We apply this law to money when we say that a 
reduction in the volume of money will raise the purchasing power of the dollar; 
we also apply the law of supply and demand to silver when we say that a new 
demand for silver created by law will raise the price of silver bullion. Gold 
and silver are different from other commodities, in that they are limited in 
quantity. Corn, wheat, manufactured products, etc., can be produced almost 
without limit, provided they can be sold at a price sufficient to stimulate produc- 
tion, but gold and silver are called precious metals because they arc found, not 
produced. These metals have been the objects of anxious search as far back as 
history runs, yet, according to Mr. Harvey's calculation, all the gold coin of 
the world can be melted into a 22-foot cube and all the silver coin in the world 
into a 66-foot cube. Because gold and silver are limited, both in the quantity 
now in hand and in annual production, it follows that legislation can fix the 
ratio between them. Any purchaser who stands ready to take the entire supply 
of any given article at a certain price can prevent that article from falling below 
that price. So the Government can fix a price for gold and silver by creating 
a demand greater than the supply. International bimetallists believe that sev- 
eral nations, by entering into an agreement to coin at a fixed ratio all the gold 


and silver presented, can maintain the bullion value of the metals at the mint 
ratio. When a mint price is thus established, it regulates the bullion price, 
because any person desiring coin may have the bullion converted into coin at 
that price, and any person desiring bullion can secure it by melting the coin. 
The only question upon which international bimetallists and independent bimet- 
allists differ is: Can the United States, by the free and unlimited coinage of 
silver at the present legal ratio, create a demand for silver which, taken in 
connection with the demand already in existence, will be sufficient to utilize all 
the silver that will be presented at the mints? They agree in their defense of 
the bimetallic principle, and they agree in unalterable opposition to the gold 
standard. International bimetallists cannot complain that free coinage gives 
a benefit t6 the mine owner, because international bimetallism gives to the 
owner of silver all the advantages offered by independent bimetallism at the 
same ratio. International bimetallists cannot accuse the advocates of free sil- 
ver of being "bullion owners who desire to raise the value of their bullion;" 
or "debtors who desire to pay their debts in cheap dollars;" or "demagogues 
who desire to curry favor with the people." They must rest their opposition 
upon one ground only, namely: that the supply of silver available for coinage 
is too large to be utilized by the United States. 

In discussing this question we must consider the capacity of our people 
to use silver, and the quantity of silver which can come to our mints. It must 
be remembered that we live in a country only partially developed, and that out 
people far surpass any equal number of people in the world in their power to 
consume and produce. Our extensive railroad development and enormous in- 
ternal commerce must also be taken into consideration. Now, how much silver 
can come here? Not the coined silver of the world, because almost all of it is 
more valuable at this time in other lands than it will be at our mints under free 
coinage. If our mints are opened to free and unlimited coinage at the present 
ratio, merchandise silver cannot come here, because the labor applied to it has 
made it worth more in the form of merchandise than it will be worth at our 
mints. We cannot even expect all of the annual product of silver, because 
India, China, Japan, Mexico, and all the other silver-using countries must 
satisfy their annual needs from the annual product; the arts will require a large 
amount, and the gold standard countries will need a considerable quantity for 
subsidiary coinage. We will be required to coin only that which is not needed 
elsewhere; but, if we stand ready to take and utilize all of it, other nations will 
be compelled to buy at the price which we fix. Many fear that the opening 
of our mints will be followed by an enormous increase in the annual production 
of silver. This is conjecture. Silver has been used as money for thousands 
of years, and during all of that time the world has never suffered from an over- 
production. If, for any reason, the supply of gold or silver in the future ever 
exceeds the requirements of the arts and the needs of commerce, we confi- 
dently hope that the intelligence of the people will be sufficient to devise and 
enact any legislation necessary for the protection of the public. It is folly to 
refuse to the people the money which they now need for fear they -may here- 
after have more than they need. I am firmly convinced that by opening our 
mints to the free and unlimited coinage at the present ratio we can create a 


demand for silver which will keep the price of silver bullion at $1.29 pcr ounce, 
measured by gold. 

Some of our opponents attribute the fall in the value of silver, when meas- 
ured by gold, to the fact that during the last quarter of a century the world's 
supply of silver has increased more rapidly than the world's supply of gold. 
This argument is entirely answered by the fact that, during the last five years, 
the annual production of gold has increased more rapidly than the annual pro- 
duction of silver. Since the gold price of silver has fallen more during these 
five years than it ever fell in any previous five years in the history of the world, 
it is evident that the fall is not due to increased production. Prices can be 
lowered as effectually by decreasing the demand for an article as by increasing 
the supply of it, and it seems certain that the fall in the gold price of silver 
is due to hostile legislation and not to natural laws. 

In answer to the charge that gold will go abroad under free coinage, it 
must be remembered that no gold can leave this country until the owner of the 
gold receives something in return for it which he would rather have. In other 
words, when gold leaves the country those who formerly owned it will be bene- 
fited. There is no process by which we can be compelled to part with our gold 
against our Will, nor is there any process by which silver can be forced upon us 
without our consent. Exchanges are matters of agreement, and if silver comes 
to this country under free coinage it will be at the invitation of some one in this 
country who will give something in exchange for it. 

Our opponents cannot ignore the fact that gold is now going abroad in 
spite of all legislation intended to prevent it, and no silver is being coined 
to take its place. Not only is gold going abroad now, but it must continue 
to go abroad as long as the present financial policy is adhered to, unless we 
continue to borrow from across the ocean, and even then we simply postpone 
the evil, because the amount borrowed, together with interest upon it, must 
be repaid in appreciating dollars. The American people now owe a large sum 
to European creditors, and falling prices have left a larger and larger margin 
between our net national income and our annual interest charge. There is only 
one way to stop the increasing flow of gold from our shores, and that is to 
stop falling prices. The restoration of bimetallism will not only stop falling 
prices, but will — to some extent — restore prices by reducing the world's demand 
for gold. If it is argued that a rise in prices lessens the value of the dollars 
which we pay to our creditors, I reply that, in the balancing of equities, the 
American people have as much right to favor a financial system which will 
maintain or restore prices as foreign creditors have to insist upon a financial 
system that will reduce prices. But the interests of society are far superior to 
the interests of either debtors or creditors, and the interests of society demand 
a financial system which will add to the volume of the standard money of the 
world, and thus restore stability to prices. 

Perhaps the most persistent misrepresentation that we have to meet is the 
charge that we are advocating the payment of debts in fifty-cent dollars. At 
the present time and under present laws a silver dollar, when melted, loses 
nearly half its value, but that will not be true when we again establish a mint 
price for silver and leave no surplus silver upon the market to drag down the 
price of bullion. Under bimetallism silver bullion will be worth as much as 


silver coin, just as gold bullion is now worth as much as gold coin, and we 
believe that a silver dollar will be worth as much as a gold dollar. 

The charge of repudiation comes with poor grace from those who are 
seeking to add to the weight of existing debts by legislation which makes 
money dearer, and who conceal their designs against the general welfare 
under the euphonious pretense that they are upholding public credit and 
national honor. 

Those who deny the ability of the United States to maintain the parity 
between gold and silver at the present legal ratio without foreign aid 
point to Mexico and assert that the opening of our mints will reduce us 
to a silver basis and raise gold to a premium. It is no reflection upon our 
sister republic to remind our people that the United States is much g^reater 
than Mexico in area» in population, and in commercial strength. It is absurd 
to assert that the United States is not able to do anything which Mexico 
has failed to accomplish. The one thing necessary in order to maintain the 
parity is to furnish a demand great enough to utilize all the silver which will 
come to the mints. That Mexico has failed to do this is not proof that the 
United States would also fail. 

It is also argued that, since a number of the nations have demonetized 
silver, nothing can be done until all of those nations restore bimetallism. 
This is also illogical. It is immaterial how many or how few nations 
have opened mints, provided there are sufficient open mints to furnish a 
monetary demand for all the gold and silver available for coinage. 

In reply to the argument that improved machinery has lessened the cost 
of producing silver, it is sufficient to say that the same is true of the 
production of gold, and yet, notwithstanding that, gold has risen in value. 
As a matter of fact, the cost of production does not determine the value 
of the precious metals, except as it may affect the supply. If, for instance, 
the cost of producing gold should be reduced ninety per cent without any 
increase in the output, the purchasing power of an ounce of gold would 
not fall. So long as there is a monetary demand sufficient to take at a 
fixed mint price all the gold and silver produced, the cost of production 
need not be considered. 

It is often objected that the prices of gold and silver cannot be fixed in 
relation to each other, because of the variation in the relative production of 
the metals. This argument also overlooks the fact that, if the demand for both 
metals at a fixed price is greater than the supply of both, relative production 
becomes immaterial. In the early part of the present century the annual 
production of silver was worth, at the coinage ratio, about three times as 
much as the annual production of gold; whereas, soon after 1849, the annual 
production of gold became worth about three times as much, at the coinage 
ratio, as the annual production of silver; and yet, owing to the maintenance 
of the bimetallic standard, these enormous changes in relative production had 
but a slight effect upon the relative values of the metals. 

If it is asserted by our opponents that the free coinage of silver is in- 
tended only for the benefit of the mine owners, it must be remembered that 
free coinage cannot restore to the mine owners any more than demonetization 
took away; and it must also be remembered that the loss which the demonetiza- 


tion of silver has brought to the mine owners is insignificant compared to 
the loss which this policy has brought to the rest of the people. The restoration 
of silver will bring to the people generally many times as much advantage as the 
mine owners can obtain from it. While it is not the purpose of free coinage 
to specially aid any particular class, yet those who believe that the restoration 
of silver is needed by the whole people should not be deterred because an 
incidental benefit will come to the mine owner. The erection of forts, the deep- 
ening of harbors, the improvement of rivers, the erection of public buildings — 
all these confer incidental benefits upon individuals and communities, and yet 
these incidental benefits do not deter us from making appropriations for these 
purposes whenever such appropriations are necessary for the public good. 

The argument that a silver dollar is heavier than a gold dollar, and that, 
therefore, silver is less convenient to carry in large quantities, is completely 
answered by the silver certificate, which is as easily carried as the gold cer- 
tificate or any other kind of paper money. 

There are some- who, while admitting the benefits of bimetallism, object 
to coinage at the present ratio. If any are deceived by this objection they ought 
to remember that there are no bimetallists who are earnestly endeavoring to 
secure it at any other ratio than i6 to i. We are opposed to any change in 
the ratio for two reasons: first, because a change would produce great in- 
justice; and, second, because a change in the ratio is not necessary. A change 
would produce injustice because, if effected in the manner usually suggested, it 
would result in an enormous contraction in the volume of standard money. 

If, for instance, it was decided by international agreement to raise the 
ratios throughout the world to 32 to i, the change might be effected in any 
one of three ways: the silver dollar could be double in size, so that the new 
silver dollar would weigh thirty-two times as much as the present 'gold dollar; 
or the present gold dollar could be reduced one-half in weight, so that the 
present silver dollar would weigh thirty-two times as much as the new gold 
dollar; or the change could be made by increasing the size of the silver dollar 
and decreasing the size of the gold dollar until the new silver dollar would 
weigh thirty-two times as much as the new gold dollar. Those who have 
advised a change in the ratio have usually suggested that the silver dollar be 
doubled. If this change were made it would necessitate the recoinage of 
four billions of silver into two billions of dollars. There would be 
an immediate loss of two billions of dollars either to individuals or to 
the Government, but this would be the least of the injury. A shrinkage 
of one-half in the silver money of the world would mean a shrinkage of one- 
fourth in the total volume of metallic money. This contraction, by increasing 
the value of the dollar, would virtually increase the debts of the world billions' 
of dollars, and decrease still more the value of the property of the world as 
measured by dollars. Besides this immediate result, such a change in the 
ratio would permanently decrease the annual addition to the world's supply 
of money, because the annual silver product, when coined into dollars twice as 
large, would make only half as many dollars. 

The people of the United States would be injured by a change in the 
ratio, not because they produce silver, but because they own property and 
owe debts, and they cannot afford to thus decrease the value of their property 
or increase the burden of their debts. 


In 1878 Mr. Carlisle said: 

Mankind will be fortunate Indeed if the annual production of gold and lilTer 
eoln ihall keep pace with the annual increase of population and industry. 

I repeat this assertion. All of the gold and silver annually available 
for coinage, when converted into coin at the present ratio, will not, in my 
judgment, more than supply our monetary needs. 

In supporting the act of 1890, known as the Sherman act. Senator Sher- 
man, on June 5 of that year, said: 

Under the law of February, 1878, the purchase of 12.000.000 worth of silver bullion 
a month has by coinage produced annually an average of nearly $3,000,000 per month 
for a period of twelve years, but this amount, in view of the retirement of the bank 
notes, will not increase our currency in proportion to our Increasing population. It 
our present currency is estimated at $1,400,000,000, and our population is increasing 
at the ratio of 3 per cent, per annum, it would require $42,000,000 increased circulation 
each year to keep pace with the increase of population; but, as the increase of pop- 
ulation is accompanied by a still greater ratio of increase of wealth and business. 
It was thought that an immediate increase of circulation might be obtained by larger 
purchases of silver bullion to an amount sufficient to make good the retirement of 
bank notes and keep pace with the growth of population. Assuming that $54,000,000 
a year of additional currency is needed upon this basis, that amount is provided 
for In this bill by the issue of Treasury notes in exchange for bullion at the market price. 

If the United States then needed more than forty-two millions annually 
to keep pace with population and business, it now, with a larger population, 
needs a still greater annual addition; and the United States is only one nation 
among many. Our opponents make no adequate provision for the increasing 
monetary needs of the world. 

In the second place, a change in the ratio is not necessary. Hostile 
legislation has decreased the demand for silver and lowered its price when 
measured by gold, while this same hostile legislation, by increasing the de- 
mand for gold, has raised the value of gold when measured by other forms 
of property. 

We are told that the restoration of bimetallism would be a hardship 
upon those who have entered into contracts payable in gold coin, but this 
is a mistake. It will be easier to obtain the gold with which to meet a gold 
contract, when most of the people can use silver, than it is now when everyone 
is trying to secure gold. 

The Chicago platform expressly declares in favor of such legislation as 
may be necessary to prevent, for the future, the demonetization of any kind 
of legal-tender money by private contract. Such contracts are objected to 
on the ground that they are against public policy. No one questions the right 
of legislatures to fix the rate of interest which can be collected by law; there 
is far more reason for preventing private individuals from setting aside legal- 
tender law. The money which is by law made a legal tender, must, in the 
course of ordinary business, be accepted by ninety-nine out of every hundred 
persons. Why should the one-hundredth man be permitted to exempt 
himself from the general rule? Special contracts have a tendency to increase 
the demand for a particular kind of money, and thus force it to a premium. 
Have not the people a right to say that a comparatively few individuals shall 
not be permitted to derange the financial system of the nation in order to 
collect a premium in case they succeed in forcing one kind of money to a 


There is another argument to which I ask your attention. Some of the 

more zealous opponents of free coinage point to the fact that thirteen months 
must elapse between tlie election and the first regular session of the next 
Congress, and assert that during that time, in case people declare themselves 
in favor of free coinage, all loans will be withdrawn and all mortgages fore- 
closed. If these are merely prophecies indulged in by those who have for- 
gotten the provision of the Constitution, it will be sufficient to remind them 
that the President is empowered to convene Congress in extraordinary session 
whenever the public good requires such action. If, in November, the people 
by their ballots declare themselves in favor of the immediate restoration of 
bimetallism, the system can be inaugurated within a few months. 

If, however, the assertion that loans will be withdrawn and mortgages fore- 
closed is made to prevent such political action as the people may believe to 
be necessary for the preservation of their rights, then a new and vital issue is 
raised. Whenever it is necessary for the people as a whole to obtain consent 
from the owners of money and the changers of money before they can legislate 
upon financial questions, we shall have passed from a democracy to a plutocracy. 
But that time has not yet arrived. Threats and intimidation will be of no avail. 
The people who, in 1776, rejected the doctrine that kings rule by right divine, 
will not, in this generation, subscribe to the doctrine that money is omnipo- 

In conclusion, permit me to say a word in regard to international bimetal- 
lism. We are not opposed to an international agreement looking to the restora- 
tion of bimetallism throughout the world. The advocates of free coinage 
have on all occasions shown their willingness to co-operate with other nations 
in the reinstatement of silver, but they are not willing to await the pleasure 
of other governments when immediate relief is needed by the people of the 
United States, and they further believe that independent action offers better 
assurance of international bimetallism than servile dependence upon foreign aid. 
For more than twenty years we have invited the assistance of European nations, 
but all progress in the direction of international bimetallism has been blocked 
by the opposition of those who derive a pecuniary benefit from the appreciation 
of gold. How long must we wait for bimetallism to be brought to us by those 
who profit by monometallism? If the double standard will bring benefits to 
our people, who will deny them the right to enjoy those benefits? If our 
opponents would admit the right, the ability and the duty of our people 
to act for themselves on all public questions without the assistance and 
regardless of the wishes of other nations, and then propose the remedial 
legislation which they consider sufficient, we could meet them in the field 
of honorable debate; but, when they assert that this nation is helpless to 
protect the rights of its own citizens, we challenge them to submit the issue 
to a people whose patriotism has never been appealed to in vain. 

We shall not offend other nations when we declare the right of the Amer- 
ican people to govern themselves, and, without let or hindrance from without, 
decide upon every question presented for their consideration. In taking this 
position, we simply maintain the dignity of seventy million citizens who are 
second to none in their capacity for sclf-ROvernmcnt. 

The gold standard has compelled the American people to pay an ever- 



increasing tribute to the creditor nations of the world — a tribute which no one 
dares to defend. I assert that national honor requires the United States to 
secure justice for all its citizens as well as do justice to all its creditors. For a 
people like ours, blest with natural resources of surpassing richness, to proclaim 
themselves impotent to frame a financial system suited to their own needs is 
humiliating beyond the power of language to describe. We cannot enforce 
respect for our foreign policy so long as we confess ourselves unable to frame 
our own financial policy. 

Honest diilerences of opinion have always existed, and ever will exist, 
as to the legislation best calculated to promote the public weal; but when it is 
seriously asserted that this nation must bow to the dictation of other nations 
and accept the policies which they insist upon, the right of self-government is 
assailed, and until that question is settled all other questions are insignificant. 

Citizens of New York, I have traveled from the center of the continent 
to the seaboard that I might, in the very beginning of the campaign, bring 
you greeting from the people of the West and South and assure you that their 
desire is not to destroy but to build up. They invite you to accept the princi- 
ples of a living faith rather than listen to those who preach the gospel of de- 
spair and advise endurance of the ills you have. The advocates of free coinage 
believe that, in striving to secure the immediate restoration of bimetallism, they 
are laboring in your behalf as well as in their own behalf. A few of your people 
may prosper under present conditions, but the permanent welfare of New York 
rests upon the producers of wealth. This great city is built upon the commerce 
of the nation and must suffer if that commerce is impaired. You cannot sell 
unless the people have money with which to buy, and they, cannot obtain the 
money with which to buy unless they are able to sell their products at remunera- 
tive prices. Production of wealth goes before the exchange of wealth; those 
who create must secure a profit before they have anything to share with others. 
You cannot afford to join the money changers in supporting a financial policy 
which, by destroying the purchasing power of the products of toil, must in the 
end discourage the creation of wealth. 

I ask, I expect, your co-operation. It is true that a few of your financiers 
would fashion a new figure — a figure representing Columbia, her hands bound 
fast with fetters of gold and her face turned toward the East, appealing for 
assistance to those who live beyond the sea — but this figure can never express 
your idea of this nation. You will rather turn for inspiration to the heroic 
statue which guards the entrance to your city — a statue as patriotic in concep- 
tion as it is colossal in proportions. It was the gracious gift of a sister republic 
and stands upon a pedestal which was built by the American people. That 
figure — Liberty enlightening the world — is emblematic of the mission of our 
nation among the nations of the earth. With a government which derives its 
powers from the consent of the governed, secures to all the people freedom of 
conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of speech, guarantees equal rights 
to all, and promises special privileges to none, the United States should be an 
example in all that is good, and the leading spirit in every movement which has 
for its object the uplifting of the human race. 

As soon as I concluded, Mr. Sewall received his letter of notifica- 



tion, and replied in a brief speech which was well received. The 
speech will appear in another chapter. 

Mrs. Bryan and I were much amused the next morning by a 
newspaper article which attempted to describe her appearance during 
the delivery of the speech. It carried her through all the emotions, from 
ecstasy to despair. If the account had been founded upon fact it 
would have justified her in claiming pre-eminence among the artists 
in facial expression. 

After the notification meeting we went to the balcony of the Bar- 
tholdi Hotel, where I spoke for a few moments to those who had been 
unable to gain entrance to Madison Square Garden. The following 
is an extract: 

Some of your financiers have boasted that they favor gold, but you shall 
teach them that they must carry their ideas far enough to believe, not in gold, 
but in the golden rule. Our opponents have been threatening to organize a 
gold standard Democratic party, but be not afraid, you will search the pages 
of history in vain to find a battle ever won by an army of generals. They have 
not a private in their ranks. Now, my friends, I want you to set an example 
for your opponents which they have not set for you. They have said that they 
represented the respectable element of society. Teach them that a man's 
respectability cannot be proven by slandering every one who differs from him in 

On the next day Mr. Sewall, Mrs. Bryan and I received call- 
ers at the Windsor Hotel. On Friday we took a run down to Coney 
Island and on our return overheard a fellow passenger on the boat 
very bitterly denouncing me. After he had exhausted language in 
expressing his contempt for me and my supporters he was introduced. 
Mrs. Bryan and I tried to assure him that no harm had been done by 
his candid expression of opinion, but he was so deeply mortified that 
he did not enjoy the remainder of the trip. 



SATURDAY morning we brought to a close our very pleasant 
sojourn with Mr. St. John and his mother, and in company 
with Mr. Sewall went up the Hudson to Irvington, to spend 
the Sabbath with Mr. John Brisbane Walker. Mr. Walker's residence 
is surrounded by splendid shade, and commands a beautiful view of the 
Hudson. Here for forty-eight hours we enjoyed a season of rest and 
recreation. During the afternoon Mr. Walker showed us through 
the building where his magazine, the Cosmopolitan, is published, and 
we had an opportunity to examine the publisher's art in its highest 
state of perfection. 

Sunday morning General Samuel Thomas laid aside his aversion 
to silver, as well as his hostihty to Democracy, and took us to his 
church, the First Presbyterian, where we listened to a sermon by the 
Rev. Dr. Ingham. In the afternoon, Mr. O. J. Smith, of the Ameri- 
can Press Association, an old-time friend, called with his wife, and 
took us for a drive along the Hudson, through Sleepy Hollow, and to 
the grave of Washington Irving. This, our first view of Hudson 
river scenery, was much enjoyed. While at Mr. Walker's we made the 
acquaintance of Mr. W. R. Hearst, of the New York Journal, and 
Dr. Albert Shaw, of the Review of Reviews. 

Although loth to leave so delightful a host and hostess, we were 
compelled to resume our journey Monday morning. Mr. Sewall went 
down to New York, and we accompanied him as far as Yonkers, where 
we boarded a Hudson river steamer. While waiting for the boat, some 
one asked for an autograph, and we had a chance to observe the effect 
of a precedent, for as soon as one request had been complied with 
another was made, until the entire time of waiting was occupied in 
the furnishing of autographs, and the work continued after the boat 
started until we were compelled to suspend it or miss the beauties of 
the ride. We were given a place in the pilot house, and had pointed 
out to us the various places of note along the river. West Point was 
especially interesting. 

At Newburg a considerable crowd had gathered and a still larger 
one at Poughkeepsie, where we took the train for Barrytown. At the 



latter place we were met by Mr. and Mrs. E. C. Perrine, and driven 
lo their home at Upper Red Hook, about six miles back from the 
river, where we remained one week. Mrs. Perrine was Mrs. Bryan's 
teacher in the Academy at Jacksonville, and the warm friendship which 
grew up between them was continued after the teacher had returned to 
New York and the pupil had gone to her Nebraska home. When 
we were casting about for a place of rest, this home naturally sug- 
gested itself, and upon arrival we found it even better suited to our 
purpose than we had anticipated. Mr. and Mrs. Perrine left nothing 
undone to make our stay enjoyable. 

Upper Red Hook is a very small village, consisting of a hotel, 
a postoffice, a store, two or three churches, and a few residences. 
A spirit of restfulness pervades the town and the country roads fur- 
nish well-shaded drives. There was a reception the evening of our 
arrival, attended by the neighbors for miles around. When my fond- 
ness for green corn became known, the farmers generously sup- 
plied our table, and justice compels me to add that the quality was 
fully equal to the Nebraska article. 

There wxre some lakes near by where we made rather an unsuc- 
cessful attempt at fishing. As an illustration of the manner in which a 
candidate's action is watched by both friendly and unfriendly eyes, I 
here record the fact that as soon as the papers announced the catch- 
ing of a fish, I was at once warned by numerous letters not to fish any 
more during the campaign, lest I should offend those who had be- 
come prejudiced against presidential fishing. 

One afternoon was devoted to a drive down the river to Rhine- 
cliflFe and a visit to Governor Morton's farm. The overseer kindly 
took us through the grounds, showed the ninety-acre cornfield, 
the wonder of that portion of the State, gave us a sample of creamery 
butter, inducted us into the mysteries of incubators and spring poultry, 
and at last took us through the Governor's famous barn and pointed 
out the most noted of his herd. On our return we stopped for supper 
at Rhinebeck, where we found a crowed assembled and a band ready to 
give us a serenade. My speech at Rhinebeck was as follows: 

Rhinebeck Speech* 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I think I can go further even 
than the chairman of this impromptu meeting. He says that to be the 
President of the United States is to be greater than to be a Roman, or a king. 
But few can be President, and I rejoice that I live in a land where to be a citizen 
is greater than to be a king. I rejoice that I live in a land where those 


who exercise authority derive that authority from the consent of the governed 
and do not rule by the right divine. 

In this land, whether we live along the Hudson, or on the Western 
prairies, we stand upon a common plane and we participate in a government 
which represents us all. We may belong to diflFerent parties, but I trust I may 
be able to express the desire of each of you, as well as of myself, when 
I say that we ought to belong at all times to that party which, in our judg- 
ment, will enable us best to serve our country. 

Parties are instruments, not ends. They are the means we use to secure 
that which we believe to be best for us, for our families, and for our fellows. 
Issues arise from time to time, and it is the duty of every citizen who loves 
his country, and who appreciates the responsibilities which rest upon him, to 
study each issue as it arises. 

I am not here tonight to make you a political speech. I am in your 
midst to rest. But I cannot withstand the temptation at this time to beg that 
you will study, if you have not done so before, that issue which in this cam- 
paign is paramount. I know that among our neighbors in the East there 
are many who have regarded our position upon the money question as entirely 
wrong, and they speak of the silver sentiment as a sort of disease. 

I want to beg of you, my friends, to believe that we, who advocate the 
restoration of the money of the Constitution, are not seeking that policy 
because we believe that it is going to give us an advantage over somebody 
else. We have studied the question as best we could, and we honestly believe 
that there can be no permanent, no general prosperity in this country until 
we stop the conspiracy of those who would make gold the only standard of the 
world and make all other things depend upon that alone. 

We believe that while the struggle for gold goes on other things must 
become cheap; that as we increase the demand for that one thing, gold, we 
must decrease the price of all those things which are exchanged for gold, 
and we believe that this falling of prices, compelled by legislation, is destructive 
of the energies, the industries and the hope of the toiling masses of the United 
States and of the world. I beg of you, when you are considering this question, 
to remember that this is a great nation, and that it is made up of 70,ooo,cxx) 
people, each the equal of the other. 

I have visited some of your beautiful villas along the Hudson. I have 
been charmed with their beauty, but when you study this question, remember 
that those, who, instead of occupying these magnificent places, must toil 
all day under the summer sun, have just as much interest in the money 
question as anybody else. Remember, that this question cannot be viewed from 
the standpoint of any class of people. 

It reaches every man, woman and child in the land, and you should 
make your view broad enough to comprehend them all, because I believe I 
speak the truth when I say that the prosperity of the well-to-do rests upon 
the prosperity of those who toil, and that you cannot have a financial policy 
which brings distress to those who create wealth, without, in the end, reaching 
those who rest upon these toilers. And, more than that, you cannot have 
a policy which brings prosperity to the masses without the prosperity proving 
of benefit to all mankind. 


I beg that in your consideration of this question, you will study the in- 
terests of all, and not merely the interests of those who may be permanently 
benefited by the rise in the value of the dollar, and, when you have made up 
your mind, I desire each of you to feel that you have the right to express your 
own view. The ballot was not given in order that one man should vote for 
many, or that one man should compel others to vote with him, or purchase 
their votes. 

It was given in order that each man might make his ballot represent a 
free man*s will, and, when each one, studying as he will and voting as he likes, 
expresses himself we take a majority, and then we all support the one who is 
elected and hold up his hands while he administers for us the government, 
whether we agree with his views or not. 

Saturday afternoon we visited Madalin and there I made my first 
campaign speech, a portion of which is given below : 

Madalin Speech* 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: We are entering upon a cam- 
paign which is a remarkable one in many respects. Heretofore, at least during 
the last twenty-five or thirty years, each party has gone into the campaign 
practically solid, presenting a united front against the opposing party. But in 
this campaign there has been practically a bolt from every convention which 
has been held. What does this mean? It means that convictions are deeper 
this year than they have been heretofore. 

It means that people are not so willing now as they have been to allow 
the platform of a party to control their action. Men are thinking this year 
with more of earnestness and intensity than they have in recent years, and 
the results of this thinking will be manifested when the time comes to register 
the will of this great nation, and between that time and this hour we expect 
to present to those who must act upon the questions the issues of this cam- 

When our party at Chicago wrote the platform which it did, we knew 
that it would offend some people. No party can take a plain, strong, emphatic 
position upon any question without offending somebody. Wc declared in that 
platform what we believfed to be right. We declared there the policies which 
we believed to be best for the American people, and when we did it we knew 
that it would alienate some. 

Let me read one of the planks of that platform: 

We are opposed to the issuing of interest bearing bonds of the United States in time 
of peace, and condemn the trafflcking with banking syndicates which, in exchange for 
bonds, and at an enormous profit to themselves, supply the Federal Treasury with gold 
to maintain the policy of gold monometallism. 

That is one of the planks. That was not put in there to attract the love 
of those who have grown rich out of the Government's extremities. We did 
not expect those who have a passage way from the Federal Treasury to their 
offices to join with us in closing up the passage way. We did not expect those 
who are making a profit out of a gold standard and out of the embarrassment 
which it brings to the Treasury to join with us in putting an end to the gold 


Standard. Why, if we had expected it, we would have expected it in the face 
of all the history of the past. 

Do you remember the Good Book tells us that some 1800 years ago a man 
named Demetrius complained of the preaching of the Gospel. Why? He said, 
"It destroys the business in which we are engaged. We are making images for 
the worship of Diana, and these people say that they be not gods that are made 
with hands." 

But Demetrius was much like men who have lived since his day. When 
he had made up his mind that the preaching of the Gospel interfered with his 
business he didn't go out and say to the world, "Our business is being injured 
and we are mad." What did he say? He said, "Great is Diana of the 

We have some today who are very much like Demetrius. They know that 
the restoration of bimetallism destroys the business in which they have been 

But when they make public speeches they don't say that the Democratic 
party is wrong because it interferes with their business. What do they say? 
They say "Great is sound money; great is an honest dollar." 

I say this platform was not written to attract their votes. It was written 
because we want to destroy the business in which they are engaged. But, 
my friends, if those who have made a profit out of the Government's financial 
policy array themselves against the Democratic party, may or may we not 
expect those who believe that we are right to come to our rescue and fill up 
the ranks that are being thus depleted? 

If we must part company with those who believe in a government of syn- 
dicates, by syndicates and for syndicates, may we not appeal with confidence 
to those who believe that "a government of the people, by the people and 
for the people should not perish from the earth?" 

If these men who pride themselves upon their prominence in the business 
world and who glory in the title of business men are going to make a business 
out of politics, and are going to use their ballots to increase their incomes, 
I beg you to consider whether the great toiling masses of this nation have not 
a right to make a business out of politics once and protect their homes and 
their families. 

I have not been in the State of New York long. I have not met many 
of your people. And yet in the short time that I have been here I have met 
enough Republicans who have told me that they were going to vote our ticket 
to make up for every prominent Democrat that has deserted us. And we wel- 
come the coming guests as we speed those who are parting. 

Now, my friends, this is a practical question. It is a question which you 
must consider for yourselves. 

The gentleman who has preceded me has very properly told you that you 
are competent to settle this question for yourselves. The founders of our 
Government never imagined that a time would come when there would be only 
a few people in this country who would be competent to settle a great public 
question. If they had they would have written in the Constitution that on most 
questions everybody could vote, but that on the money question only the 


financiers could vote. It is hollow mockery to grant to the people a right in 
your Constitution and then deny them the privilege of exercising the right. 

People Can Be Trusted* 

I assert that the people of the United States, those who produce wealth 
as well as those who exchange it, have sufhcient patriotism and sufHcient intelli- 
gence to sit in judgment upon every question which has arisen or which will 
arise, no matter how long our Government may endure. The great political 
questions are in their final analysis great moral questions, and it requires no 
extended experience in the handling of money to enable a man to tell right 
from wrong. 

And, more than this, this money question will not be settled until the great 
common people act upon it. No question is settled until the masses settle 
it. Abraham Lincoln said that the Lord must have loved the common people, 
because He made so many of them. He was right about it. 

The common people are the only people who have ever supported a reform 
that had for its object the benefit of the human race. 

I do not mean to say that there have not been exceptions to the rule. I do 
not mean to say that you have not found among the masses at all times those 
who are ready to betray those who toiled with them if they could see some 
chance of personal elevation. 

Nor do I mean to say that those who have got beyond the ranks of the 
common people arc entirely unmindful of the claims of brotherhood upon them. 
But 1 say as a general rule that the common people here and everywhere have 
been the support and the only great support of every measure of reform. 

Now you have a right to take this question, examine it, and form your 
own opinion, and the ballot is given to you in order that you may express your 
own opinion when you come to vote, and not be required to accept somebody 
else's opinion. 

And I am going to call your attention to just a few things this afternoon 
for you to consider when you arc trying to make up your minds what you 
should do. 

Our opponents are all divided as to the policy which should be pursued. 
You take the gold standard Democrats. Some of them say they ought to come 
out openly and indorse the Republican candidate, so as to be sure and elect 
him. Others say, "No, that would be dangerous, because unless we have a 
candidate of our own there will be a great many Democrats who will be foolish 
enough to vote the Democratic ticket." 

And there they arc divided. They all want the same object. They all 
want to elect the Republican candidate, because they believe that Democracy is 
better exemplified through Republicanism than through Democracy. 

But I say they are divided as to the means of getting at it, and some say 
that they can elect the Republican candidate better by having a candidae of 
their own to fool Democrats with than they can by openly supporting the 
Republican ticket. 

Not only are ihcy divided there, but they are divided all the way through 
when they come to argument. Why, some of them will start out to show that 
the gold standard is a good thing, and after one of their speakers gets well along 

77>»tM.£^ y. /k<JlA^i..v^ - 


showing how great a thing the gold standard is, then another speaker comes 
along and says it is a mistake to say the gold standard is good, that the gold 
standard is not good; that what we want is bimetallism, but that we can't have 
it until somebody helps us. Now those two arguments are not consistent. If 
the gold standard is a good thing, why should they want bimetallism? And yet 
if they ever have two men making speeches the same night, the chances are 
i6 to I that one of them will praise the gold standard as a good thing, while 
the other will tell you how anxious they are to get rid of it. 

Well, then, they come to the details of the argument. One man says the 
reason why he does not want free coinage is that he does not think that the 
Government should pass a law that will enable a silver miner to take 50 cents 
worth of silver bullion and convert it into a hundred cents and make the 

And he will get red in the face, and become indignant at the idea that the 
Government should attempt to help some individual in this way. Of course, he 
may have been in favor of a system of taxation that would give 200 or 300 per 
cent., but that doesn't count. It is a terrible thing to allow the silver miner to 
make that profit. 

Then the next man who comes up will say that as a matter of fact the 
stamp of the Government adds nothing to the value of the metal, and that 
the free coinage of silver simply means that you convert 50 cents' worth of 
bullion into a 50-cent dollar, and that nobody makes any profit out of it. 

I say that the chances are that, if two men make speeches on the same 
platform against our taking any action until some foreign nation helps us, 
you will find that one of them will make one argument and the other will ma^ce 
the other argument, and very often the same man makes both arguments. 

Now you can see the absurdity of it. If the silver miner, under free coin- 
age, finds that his silver bullion is raised so that that which is now worth 50 
cents will be worth 100 cents, then there will be no 50-cent dollars; and if 
the other man is correct, and the law adds nothing to the value of the metal, 
and you simply convert 50 cents' worth of silver into a 50-cent dollar, then the 
mine owner will not make a cent. 

If there are two men to speak against our position, one of them will 
probably say that there has been no fall in prices, and he will denounce the 
people who complain that gold has risen in value, and after he has proved that 
to the satisfaction of every man who does not think, then his colleagues will 
come on and tell you that not only have prices fallen, but that it is the greatest 
blessing in the world to have prices fall. 

Those two are not consistent, but it follows all the way through. Why is 
it? It is because our opponents have no theory, no principle, no policy upon 
which they are prepared to stand and fight. They do not dare to say that the. 
gold standard is a good thing, because no party in the history of this country 
has ever declared in favor of a gold standard; and they do not dare to say 
that it is a bad thing, and then tell seventy millions of liberty loving people 
that they must suffer until some foreign nation comes and brings them relief. 

I want you to remember that in the discussion of this money qbestion there 
are certain fundamental principles; and when you understand those principles 
you understand the money question. 


What is the principle that underlies it all? It is that the law of supply and 
demand applies to money as it does to everything else. 

You know that if the world's crop next year of a certain article is very 
much greater than the crop this year, that article will fall in price; if the crop 
is much smaller than this year, the article will rise in price. You know that the 
law of supply and demand reaches and controls money, as well as other forms 
of property. It reaches and controls all sorts of property. 

Increase the amount of money more rapidly than the demand for money 
increases, and you lower the value of a dollar; decrease the quantity of money 
while the demand for it increases, and you increase the value of a dollar. When 
you understand that, you understand the essence of the money question. When 
you understand that, you understand what its effect is on you; and then you 
can tell where your interest lies. When you understand that principle, then 
you understand why the great crusade in favor of the gold standard finds its 
home among the holders of fixed investments, who, by such legislation, raise 
the value of the property which they hold. 

I am not giving you my authority for it; I can quote you authority 
which our opponents dare not question. I have called attention, and I shall 
continue to call attention, to a remark made by Mr. Blaine in Qongress on this 

He said that the destruction of silver as money and the establishing of 
gold as the sole unit of value must have a ruinous effect upon all forms of 
property, except those investments which yield a fixed return in money; that 
these would be enormously enhanced in value and would gain a disproportionate 
and unfair advantage over every other species of property. 

There is a statement that no man who has respect for his reputation will 
dare to dispute. 

It means that you will give to those investments and to this one form of 
property, money, an advantage over every other form of property. 

When you understand the effect of the policy and then understand that the 
desire for it is manifested most among those who hold the fixed investments 
or trade in money, I think you will come to the conclusion that I have come 
to — that the fact that the gold standard is a good thing for them is the principal 
reason why they are in favor of a gold standard. 

When you make up your minds that the gold standard is a bad thing, 
then the only question that you have to consider is, how can you get rid of 
it? Our opponents may raise objections to the plans which we propose, but 
I want to suggest that you are interested not so much in knowing the objections 
to our plans as in knowing what plans they have to relieve the condition. 

Why don*t they propose something? Is it because they don't know what 
ought to be done? If so, they are poor people to lead you out of bondage. 

Is it because they know and will not tell? If so, they have not the candor 
that should be possessed by those who would redeem a people from their 
suffering and distress. They say that our dollar will be a 53-cent dollar. They 
refuse to apply to the silver that is produced in the world the law of supply 
and demand. 

We say, increase the demand for silver by legislation and that new demand, 
acting with the demand now in existence, will operate upon the price of silver. 



We say that that new demand will be sufficient to consume all the silver pre- 
sented at the mint, and being sufficient, will raise the value of silver bullion 
to $1.29 per ounce throughout the world. 

We have a reason for our belief: They simply say, "It won*t do it; it 
won't do it," and then sit back and propose absolutely nothing. 

I have known some of our opponents to use this sort of argument: Why, 
they say, if the free coinage of silver makes a silver dollar equal to a gold 
dollar it will be just as hard to get a silver dollar as it is to get a gold dollar. 
Do you know what they overlook? They overlook the fact that when we bring 
silver into competition with gold and increase the supply of standard money, 
while a silver dollar will be worth as much as a gold dollar, it will be easier to 
obtain, with the products of toil, a silver dollar or a gold dollar than it is 

Our complaint is that the same hostile legislation which has destroyed the 
demand for silver and driven down the price of silver when measured by gold, 
has also increased the demand for gold and driven up the price of gold when 
measured by other forms of property, and that the opening of our mints 
to the free and unlimited coinage of silver will operate to bring more money 
into circulation, and thus lessen the strain upon gold, and that by increasing 
the demand for silver we bring silver up until silver and gold meet at the ratio 
now fixed by law, and a silver dollar and a gold dollar will be of the same 
value here and all over the world. 

After another Sunday's rest we bade good-bye to the Perrines and 
their cozy little home, and, upon invitation of Chairman James S. 
Hinckley, of the New York State Committee, crossed the river and 
penetrated the Catskills as far as Winnisook Lodge, a summer resort, 
where Mr. Hinckley and Public Printer Benedict, with their families, 
and a number of congenial spirits, find a period of refreshing rest 
during the summer months. Our brief stay at the Lodge was en- 
livened bv music and mirth, and we recollect the visit as one of the 
most pleasant incidents of the campaign. 

The next day we returned from the Lodge, stopping on the way to 
take dinner at the Grand Hotel. At Kingston and Hudson large 
crowds were assembled, and short speeches made. 

At Albany we were met by ex-Senator Norton Chase and Collector 
Louis W. Pratt, and driven to Wolfert's Roost, Governor Hill's 
suburban home. As soon as the Albany meeting was arranged, I ac- 
cepted with much pleasure, an invitation to dine with Senator Hill, 
with whom, notwithstanding our somewhat divergent views, I had be- 
come quite well acquainted while in Washington. The visit at his 
house was necessarily brief, owing to our late arrival and early de- 
parture. There were at dinner Judge D. Cady Herrick and wife, 
Mr. Pratt and wife, Mr. Chase and wife. General F. P. Earle and 
wife, and Mr. James Oliver, sergeant-at-arms of the National Com- 


The Albany meeting was largely attended and, for an out-door 
meeting, very enthusiastic. I spoke for about a half an hour, but 
shall only quote a few sentences: 

Albany Speech* 

The Democratic party met in convention at Chicago, and a majority of 
the Democrats of the United States, speaking through their regularly chosen 
representatives, adopted a platform and nominated a ticket. It is not to be 
expected that every person will find in any platform all that he desires, and 
nothing that he does not like. But when a citizen is called upon to vote, he 
endorses that platform which gives him the best assurances of securing the most 
important things which he desires. It is proper, aye, more, it is necessary, that 
the candidate who stands upon a platform shall endorse the utterances of the 
platform, and I stand before you to declare in your presence that I endorse 
every word and every syllable of the platform adopted at Chicago. But while 
I do so, I expect in this campaign the support of many Democrats who are 
not willing to endorse all that the platform declares for. In a campaign there 
is always some overshadowing issue; there is always some paramount question 
which, more than any other, determines the allegiance of those who support the 
ticket. In this campaign we appeal with confidence to those who are opposed 
to a longer continuation of the gold standard policy by the United States. The 
Democratic party has begun a war of extermination against the gold standard. 
We ask no quarter; we give no quarter. We shall prosecute our warfare 
until there is not an American citizen who dares to advocate the gold standard. 



OUR train left Albany at 9 o'clock and after making several 
stops reached Utica about 1 1 -.30. At Schenectady, Amster- 
dam and a number of other places the people had gathered 
at the station to manifest what friends described as '^interest," and 
what opponents termed **idle curiosity.*' The crowd at Utica was so 
large that it was difficult to make them hear and the lateness of the 
hour forbade any exended speech. Here again a falling platform car- 
ried down a number of persons. 

During the next day large meetings were held at Syracuse^ Roch- 
ester and Erie, with smaller ones at other places along the line. The 
meeting at Syracuse was presided over by Mayor McGuire, who re- 
ferred to the fact that the home of Governor Seymour had been near 
that city, and this recalled to my mind the first campaign which I re- 
member when, as a boy, I hurrahed for Seymour and Blair. At 
Rochester, ex-Secretary of State Cooke presided and ex-Congressman 
Greenleaf, a former colleague in the House of Representatives, sat 
upon the stage. 

At one of the smaller stations along the route a middle-aged farm- 
er entered the car. He wore a widebrimmed hat, and was in his shirt 
sleeves. Standing more than six feet in height, with broad shoulders, 
a high forehead and an intelligent face, he was a splendid specimen 
of manhood. Coming through the car he stopped at my seat, shook 
hands and said: 

"I have always been a Republican, but I am for silver. We farm- 
ers know what is good for us," and then quickly made his exit through 
the rear door. ^le had left his team a few feet away, and as the train 
pulled out we saw him following the plow across the field. He im- 
pressed me as a typical American citizen, one who thought for him- 
self and then made his vote express his convictions. 

Before reaching Buffalo we were met by Hon. Norman E. Mack, 
of the Times, whose gallant fight for the ticket was very much ap- 
preciated. Judge R. C. Titus, Hon. Jacob Stern, and others. We made 
only a brief stop at Buffalo and then went on to Erie, Pa., stopping for 
a moment at Dunkirk. The Democratic clubs of Pennsylvania were 



assembled in convention at Erie and the attendance was so large that 
three large halls were filled. My last speech was to the members 
of the clubs and the meeting was one of the most demonstrative held 
in the East. This was in the district which Mr. Sibley had represented 
in Congress, and in which he was again a candidate. In a speech 
made the next morning, at the close of a reception given at the hotel, 
I took occasion to point out the necessity of electing a Congress 
pledged to silver. The following is an extract : 

Erie Speech* 

The people are engaged in this fight because they believe that the triumph 
of the principles represented by the Chicago platform is absolutely essential to 
the welfare of our nation. This is not merely an attempt to secure the Presi- 
dency in order to divide the offices among a few of the people. Offices cut no 
figure in this campaign. I believe my experience has been rather an unusual 
one. The people who have come to me have come with suggestions as to 
what can be done to help the cause and no one has come to ask me for the 
promise of an office in case of my election. I have not discussed patronage 
with anybody. I shall not discuss patronage with anybody during this cam- 
paign. A man who in the midst of a great battle stops to negotiate as to what 
official position he is to occupy when this battle is over is unworthy to hold any 
position. Nor are we satisfied with securing the Presidency. The President 
alone is powerless to secure legislation. He does not express his approval 
until the Senate and House have joined in a measure, and I appeal to you, if 
you are interested in the success of our cause, to use your efforts to secure a 
Senate and a House, as well as a President, favorable to these reforms. The 
Senate is practically secure. We have reason to believe that the Senate 
which convenes on the fourth of March next year will be in favor of the free 
and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present legal ratio of i6 to i 
without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. But it is necessary 
that we should have the House also. The House today is in the hands of the 
enemy and we must take possession of the House in order to put any good 
measure into operation, and I beg you in every Congressional district in this 
nation to see to it that no man shall receive a majority of the votes, if you can 
help it, unless he goes there to fight for the money of the Constitution from 
the day that he takes his seat until the last day he occupies a place in the 
House. You have in this district a man who has been tried and not found wanting. 
You have in this district one of the ablest, one of the most fearless, one of the 
most eloquent advocates of this great cause. His voice has been heard all over 
this land and you will be guilty of a desertion of this cause unless you make 
Joseph C. Sibley your member of Congress at this election. 

I reiterated this sentiment at every convenient opportunity be- 
cause I felt that the election of a bimetallist to the Presidency would 
be of no avail unless he was supported by a Congress in harmony 
with him on the money question. I took occasion in the Erie speech 


to commend my friend Sibley, who is deserving of all the good things 
that can be said of any candidate for oiHce. 

We returned to Buffalo the next day, and after a reception at the 
hotel, I addressed one of the largest indoor meetings of the campaign, 
and later spoke from the balcony of the hotel. Ex-Attorney General 
Charles F. Tabor presided at the first meeting. I give below a small 
portion of the speech : 

Buffalo Speech* 

I am aware that in the making of a platform it is impossible to please all. 
I recognize that people who think will diiTer, and that a platform often contains 
declarations which the voter does not like and omits things which he would like 
to have included. But platforms are not written by all of the party; they are 
written by a majority of the party. And when the majority writes a platform 
the other members of the party must either accept it or get out of the party. 
Either the majority must rule or the minority, and it is better for the minority 
to be alienated than for the voice of the majority to be suppressed. 

Speaking of the improbability of international bimetallism, I said: 

Our opponents tell us that they will try to secure an international agree- 
ment, and that they simply desire to maintain the gold standard until other 
nations will help us to let go. Can you expect the restoration of bimetallism 
from those who wrote the St. Louis platform? Never, until you can gather 
grapes from thorns and figs from thistles. Those who are responsible for the 
gold standard are not the ones to whom we must look for deliverance. As well 
might Pharaoh have been expected to lead the children of Israel out of bondage, 
as to expect the Republican party to break the shackles of the gold standard. 

On the following morning, in company with Judge Titus, Mr. 
Mack, District Attorney Matthews and others we took an electric car 
for Niagara Falls, and, after a view of the surrounding country from 
the tower, spent an hour in a trip down the rapids and back. Taking 
the train from Niagara Falls, we proceeded, with the customary stops 
along the road, to Knowlesville, where a farmers' picnic was in 
progress. This meeting was the first distinctively farmers' meeting ad- 
dressed and I noted with much interest the depth of feeling manifested 
by the advocates of bimetallism here. The speaker's stand was built in 
a g^ove, aod the trees served as a gallery for a large number of boys 
and young men. The meeting was presided over by Hon. Marcus A. 
Phillips, a former member of the Legislature, who left the Republican 
party after the adoption of the St. Louis platform. The presence of so 
many men who were engaged in agricultural pursuits led me to relate 
a conversation which I had had only a few weeks before with an old 
college friend. He was a man of excellent education and exemplary 
habits^ and lived in Central Illinois upon a farm of great fertility. He 



was telling me of his experience upon the farm and how impossible it 
was for him to pay the rent which the farm had formerly brought, and 
at the same time, out of his diminishing income, provide for the necessi- 
ties of his growing family. The tears filled his eyes as he pointed to 
three children playing upon the floor and told me that the saddest thing 
he had to contemplate was his inability, under existing conditions, to 
give them such an education as he desired them to have. Knowing that 
this incident is multiplied ten thousand times throughout the land, I 
have found it difficult to express, in language entirely parliamentary, 
my indignation when I consider our financial system, which thus 
brings privation to the creators of wealth, and undeserved advantage 
to the money owners and money traders, who advocate the gold 
standard under the pretense that they are supporting a sound financial 
system and an honest dollar. 

Wc found it so difficult to get through the crowd to our carriage 
that we missed the train upon which we had intended to return to 
Niagara Falls, and did not reach that place until about 8 o'clock. The 
time, however, was pleasantly spent in a visit to Medina, the home of 
Hon. James A. Hanlan, a delegate to the Chicago convention, who 
arranged for the Knowlesville meeting. Here we met two Nebraska 
friends. Prof. T. M. Hodgman and wife. 

A large crowd assembled in front of the Cataract House, in Niagara 
Falls, and I delivered a speech, rather non-partisan in its character. 
Early next morning the local committee took us out to the Government 
park, where we obtained an excellent view of the falls. I have been 
deterred from attempting to describe the beauties of Niagara, because 
the work has been so well done by other visitors. No one can view 
the falls or the rapids without being impressed with the grandeur of this 
specimen of nature's handiwork. 

The ride to Hornellsville was made without any incident of special 

importance. Upon arrival we found that Mr. C. A. Dolson had more 

than redeemed the promise which he made in regard to attendance 

when he visited Upper Red Hook and arranged for the meeting. The 

audience was mainly agricultural, and yet contained a larger proportion 

of townsfolks than the Knowlesville gathering. 1 took occasion here to 

comment upon the habit, so prevalent among the advocates of the gold 

standard, of using obscure and ambiguous terms. The following is an 

extract : 

Hornellsville Speech* 

It is the object, or at least should be, of public speakers to aid their au- 
diences to understand the merits of disputed questions, and it is an evidence of 


sincerity of purpose when a person discusses public issues so plainly and clearly 
that one can understand just what is said and meant. When ambiguous 
language is used, when obscure expressions are employed, it is an indication 
that the person speaking has something to conceal. The Bible speaks of cer- 
tain persons who love darkness rather than light, and it gives a reason for that 
peculiar affection. Do you remember what the reason is? We are told that 
they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Whenever I 
find darkness employed in the discussion of a question, or in the statement of a 
position, I am irresistibly reminded of that Bible passage, and conclude that 
the person who attempts to be obscure does so because he is not willing that 
the people should know what he believes and what he desires to accomplish. 
When I hear a man talking about "sound money" without defining it, I think 
that, perhaps, he loves darkness rather than light because his deeds are evil. 

When I find a man talking about an "honest dollar" without telling what 
he means by an "honest dollar," I am afraid that I have found another man 
who loves darkness rather than light because his deeds are evil. 

When I find that our opponents are taking their arguments from people 
who are nameless, I am afraid that there is purpose in the obscurity. 

Let me call your attention to an item which you will find at the top of 
the first column of the first page of the Buffalo Courier. Here it is. Read the 
headlines: "Ready to unload." "India Bankers Hope that Bryan Will Win." 
"They Are Eager to Dump Great Hoards of Silver by the Ship Load on the 
United States Mints and to Double Its Present Price." 

Under this headline I find this special cablegram from that great city 
whence come most of the arguments of the enemy: "London, England. — In 
the course of an interview today a leading India merchant who has just returned 
from Calcutta said to me that (a leading India merchant, name unknown) 
American politics just now is of interest to Hindoo and Parsee bankers and 
financiers, as well as to native potentates!" 

Yes, my friends, American politics is of absorbing interest to all the 
nations because we are going to decide to govern ourselves. — "All of them, 
possessing enormous hoards of silver, eagerly desire Bryan's election, and the 
chance thereby afforded them to dump shiploads of silver bullion into the 
United States mints at double the present price. So eager are they that I 
have heard a well founded rumor (an unknown person has heard a well 
founded rumor) that a fund has been started to aid the free silver party by 
supplying campaign literature." 

That is the end of the quotation from an unknown India merchant. And the 
cablegram adds: 

"My informant is a man of such high commercial standing that I attach 
much importance to this interview." 

There is a correspondent who does not sign his name, telling about a man 
of high commercial standing, whose name he does not give, who quotes from 
a leading merchant, whose name is unknown, and he says that there is a "well 
founded rumor" that certain things are going to happen. That, my friends, 
is the sort of argument which is being spread before the American people. 
Why don't these men who are giving opinions give their names also, so that 
we can find out who the men are and what their opinions are worth? But I 


am afraid that they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are 
evil. I call attention to this item because you can see by it what an unsubstan- 
tial foundation is laid for the fears which they attempt to excite in the breasts 
of American citizens. 

Let me give you another evidence of the lack of candor and directness 
which characterizes our opponents. Ex-Secrctary Fairchild is quoted in the 
same paper as saying: 

'1 do not see how we can do anything else than put a third ticket in 
the Presidential arena. We have practically committed ourselves to such a 
course. We want to see the defeat of the Democratic ticket, and we shall try 
to draw away as many votes as we can from it. We feel that this defeat may 
best be accomplished by a third ticket. Of course, we shall find no fault with 
those of our friends who cast a straight vote for McKinley." 

Now there, my friends, is a man who claims to be in favor of honest money, 
advocating the putting up of a ticket, not for the purpose of electing it, but 
for the purpose of electing another ticket which the bolting Democrats are not 
willing to endorse in convention. I simply call your attention to the methods 
which we have to meet in this campaign and ask you whether you think these 
methods characterize a political party which is so accustomed to honesty that 
it wants money honest and dollars sound? 

From Hornellsville we proceeded with but few stops to Jamestown. 
At Celeron, a suburb of Jamestown, more than 12,000 people were 
crowded into an immense auditorium. This was probably the most 
densely packed hall in which I spoke, it being necessary to suspend 
proceedings until a sufficient number went out to make existence bear- 
able to those who remained. 

The next morning we attended the First Presbyterian Church and 
listened to a sermon by the pastor. Rev. G. M. Covell. He discussed 
several religious characters of prominence in the world's history and 
contrasted the enthusiasm of the reformer with the cool and calculating 
disposition of the man of business. We spent a pleasant afternoon 
at Lakewood with Mr. Mack, of Buffalo, and Hon. Henry W. Cornell, 
of New York City, and Monday morning left by boat for Chau- 

The visit to the Chautauqua grounds was very enjoyable, the offi- 
cials taking great pains to show us the points of interest. The 
Assembly was not in session, but the presence of a little crowd in the 
park gave me an opportunity, of which I gladly availed myself, to 
express my high appreciation of the educational work inaugurated 
at this place. I noted here the evenness among the houses, in contrast 
with the display sometimes found at fashionable summer resorts. Here 
there seemed to be a democratic equality among those who gathered 
to join intellectual development with needed recreation. 

A call upon Mr. Coleman E. Bishop, then an invalid, is pleas- 
antly remembered. 

,. _ , •r »■■ ' 


We left the lake a few miles further north, at Maysville. This being 
the home of Judge Tourgee, I borrowed an illustration from his works, 
and suggested that the gold standard was a device by which the pro- 
ducers of wealth were compelled to make "bricks without straw," and 
that to seek relief from the gold standard at the hands of the financiers 
was like going upon "a fool's errand." 

The ride by carriage from Maysville to Ripley was a beautiful one. 
The view from the water shed between Lake Erie and Lake Chautau- 
qua was especially enjoyed. Mr. Leroy M. Stringham, of Ripley, is 
recalled as one of the most persistent men whom I met during 
my entire trip. He was so urgent in his efforts to arrange a 
meeting at his town that I at last succumbed with much the feeling 
of the man in the Bible who arose in the night and gave to his neighbor 
because the neighbor would not allow him to sleep. The meeting, 
however, abundantly repaid me for the effort expended. The papers 
reported that one of the Ripley banks was robbed while the cashier was 
watching the parade. I have been at a loss to know whether this mis- 
fortune is properly chargeable to the silver agitation, or whether it 
should be construed as a warning to banks not to become too much 
interested in politics. 

This being the last meeting in New York, I took occasion to say a 
word to those who were to take part in the State convention. As the 
advice here given was subjected to criticism in some quarters, I 
quote it: 

Ripley Speech. 

As this is my farewell meeting in the State for the present, I desire to 
submit just a word to the Democrats of New York. I have been gratified to 
find that so few — few relatively — of the members of the Democratic party are 
going to oppose the platform and ticket nominated at Chicago. 

I desire to say a word to the Democrats of this State who believe that the 
State convention ought to indorse not only the candidates of the Chicago con- 
vention, but the platform on which the candidates stand. If there is any person 
here who thinks that the Democratic party of the State ought not to indorse 
the candidates and platform, what I shall say is not addressed to such person, 
but to those who believe that the convention to be held in this State in about 
two weeks should indorse both platform and candidates I desire to offer one 
suggestion. We have had a great fight in the Democratic party, one of the 
most memorable contests ever waged in the United States, and those who ad- 
vocate th.e free coinage of silver have won by carrying their cause, not to 
conventions, but to the people themselves, the source of all political power. 
If we had waited until the convention assembled at Chicago and then made our 
appeal to delegates who had been sent there uninstructed and without regard 


to the money question we would have been defeated, but we saw that the 
strength of bimetallism was in the rank and file of the party. 

Recognizing the Democratic idea that power comes up to the machinery 
of the party from the people themselves and not down from the machinery to 
the people, we commenced with the sovereigns, and instructed the dele- 
gates from the primaries to the precincts, and from the precincts to the county, 
and from the counties to the States, and from the States to the national con- 

That is the way this contest has been fought, and it is the only hope of 
those who are trying to secure justice for the masses of people. 

If you want the State convention to support the Chicago platform and 
ticket there is only one way to be sure of it, and that is to let no man go to 
any convention, small or great, until you know where he stands on this 
question and that he stands by you. No man who wants to do what is right 
will refuse to let the people know what he will do when he gets to the conven- 
tion. And when you find a man who refuses to tell you what he is going to 
do, when you find a man who will not take you into his confidence, tell him 
that you will not take him into your confidence. 

The men who attend conventions do not go there as individuals; they go as 
representatives. They do not go to act for themselves; they go to act for 
those who send them. You not only have a right to know what a man is 
going to do when he gets there, but you have a right to tell him what to do. 

From Ripley we went to Cleveland. Crowds were gathered 
at a number of places, notably at Ashtabula, O., where a number of 
silver Republicans came aboard and assured me that they were vying 
with the Democrats and Populists in their efforts to carry the county 
for silver. 



ARRIVING in Oeveland about 6 o'clock, we were escorted to the 
hotel by an impromptu procession, which seemed determined 
to show that in his efforts to elect a Republican president, the 
chairman of the Republican National Committee did not have the 
unanimous support of his neighbors. 

Mr. Charles P. Salen, chairman of the County Committee, and 
Hon. L. E. Holden, of the Plain Dealer, deserve special credit for the 
success of the Oeveland meeting. Speaking was arranged for in two 
halls, and an overflow meeting was held in front of the Hollenden 
Hotel. I here met Hon, George A. Groot, who afterward visited 
Nebraska as chairman of the Notification Committee of the National 
Silver party. He entered into the campaign with great earnestness and 
spoke in several States. 

Leaving Qeveland early in the morning we proceeded to Columbus, 
making several stops along the route and arriving early in the after- 
noon. The Columbus meeting was one of the largest held during the 
campaign, in foct, I am not sure that it was surpassed. Hon. Allen 
W. Thurman, who presided, has for several years been identified with 
the silver fight. My acquaintance with him dates from the silver confer- 
ence held in Chicago in August, 1893, he being the presiding officer on 
that occasion. My speech at Columbus was somewhat broken up by 
the fact that I was compelled to speak from the four sides of the stand. 
I was followed on this occasion by Hon. John L. Lentz, the candidate 
for Congress in that district, whom I first met and listened to at 
Madalin, N. Y. 

We went to Springfield early the next morning and there ex- 
perienced the most trying crush of the campaign. The crowd was 
large, and being massed in the hallway through which we passed, made 
our entrance almost impossible. This is the home of Hon. John W. 
Bookwalter and Hon. D. McConville, and I thought I saw in the 
enthusiasm of the people evidences of the effort which these gentle- 


men have put forth in behalf of bimetallism. Below will be found an 
extract from the speech delivered at that place: 

Springfkld (Ohio) Speedu 

For a few moments only I shall occupy your attention, because a large 
portion of my voice has been left along the line of travel, where it is still 
calling sinners to repentance. I am told that in this city you manufacture more 
agricultural implements than are manufactured in any other city in the country. 
I am glad to talk to people who recognize their dependence upon the farmers. 
I have had occasion to talk to some who seem to imagine that the harder 
they could make the condition of the farmers the better would be their own. 
I am glad to talk to you who recognize that the dollars which you receive are 
earned first by those who convert the natural resources of this country into 
money, who till the soil and from its fertility bring forth this nation's primary 
wealth. As a matter of fact the farmers and the laboring men are the founda- 
tion of society. Upon this foundation the commercial classes rest, and the 
financier acts as a sort of a roof over the structure. You can take oflF the roof 
and put on another, but you cannot destroy the foundation without destroying 
the whole building. Goldsmith well expressed it when he said: 

Princes and lords may flourish or may fade, 
A breath can make them, as a breath has made. 
But a bold peasantry, a nation's pride. 
When once destroyed, can never be supplied. 

The Democratic party, in its platform at Chicago, is pleading the cause 
of a nation's peasantry that must not .be destroyed. Upon the prosperity of the 
great producers of wealth, whom we call the masses, as distinguished from the 
classes, depends all the prosperity of this city. If you have a gold standard you 
legislate the value of property down. Do you remember how, when we were 
young, we used to play on the teeter board? When one end of the board was 
up the other was down. It has remained for modern financiers to declare that 
you can keep both ends of the teeter board up at once. They seem to think 
that money can be dear and prices good at the same time. The legis- 
lation that increases the purchasing power of the dollar simply enables 
that dollar to buy more of other things. How can a dollar be made to buy 
more of other things? By making more wheat sell for a dollar, more com 
sell for a dollar, more oats sell for a dollar, more potatoes sell for a dollar — 
more of the products of toil exchangeable for a given amount of money. It 
is a good thing for the man who owns money and buys property, but it is a 
bad thing for the man who has to buy money with property. 

How does the gold standard affect you? You make your implements and 
sell them to the farmer. Suppose the farmer finds that his taxes do not 
go down, that his interest does not go down, that his debts do not go down, 
but that the price of all that he sells goes down. What does it mean? It means 
that he has a less and less amount to expend on agricultural implements. He 
promises to pay you, and legislation destroys his ability to pay, then you find 
fault because you have to take your implements back and sell them second 
hand to somebody else. That is the effect of legislation. Our opponents are 
trying to throw upon Providence the blame for our conditions. If a farmer 


complains that he is not making much out of his potato crop they tell him 
that it is due to the potato bug. If he does not make much out of corn, they 
tell him that it is due to the chinch bug. But let me tell you that the gold 
bug is destroying more than all of them. The farmer is the most helpless 
victim of circumstances of all the producers of wealth. If a man is engaged 
in manufacturing and finds the demand decreasing, he can close his factory 
and stop the expense of production, but the farmer cannot When he plants 
his crop in the spring he does not know whether there is going to be a flood 
or a drouth; whether there will be hot winds or cold hail. He takes his 
chances, and, when he has taken more chances than anybody else and survived 
all the pestilences and calamities that visit the farm, it is not fair to drive him 
between the bulls and bears of Wall street and let them take from him all that 
is left 

The Democrats of this State have done well against odds. In spite 
of great influences the Democrats of this State have declared for the restoration 
of the money of the Constitution. You met your opponents in open conflict, 
and by superiority of numbers overcame them. What did they do? The very 
people, who have been calling all silver Democrats, Populists — who have been 
trying to read us out of the party for years, when they found that they could 
not read us out, instead of going to some other party and giving up the name 
to which we have proven our right, try to take the name with them, and then 
call us anarchists because we do not go with them. 

I understand that these gold standard Democrats have declared their em- 
blem to be the hickory tree. We have heard about Satan stealing the livery 
of Heaven, but we have never before seen men try to use the name of that 
great hero and statesman to undo all that he tried to do. Talk about Andrew 
Jackson belonging to the gold Democracy! Go back to the time of An- 
drew Jackson, and who were arrayed against him? The very classes which, 
after having failed in their effort to use the Democratic party for private gain, 
are now trying to elect the Republican candidate for President by nominating 
a gold standard candidate. Take a hickory tree for their emblem? Why do 
they not take something more appropriate? Why do they not put upon their 
ballot the picture of an owl? Nothing could be more appropriate. It looks 
wise and does its work in the dark. Or, if they do not like the owl, let them 
take the mole. It is a smooth animal and works underground all the time. 
But they ought to spare the sacred memory of the man who was the hero of 
New Orleans, and whose resting place, the Hermitage, is the Mecca of all who 
love Democratic principles still. 

My friends, remember that relief cannot come to you from those who have 
fastened this yoke upon you. You may go to New York or Boston and find 
financiers who doubt the greatness of this country and proclaim the necessity for 
foreign aid, but the men who do that know more about Europe than they do 
about the United States. They go oftener to London than to the great prairies 
of the West and South. If because of their more intimate acquaintance with 
foreigners they have exaggerated ideas of the necessity for foreign aid, you 
people who live between the Alleghanies and the Golden Gate— you who arc 
willing to trust your all upon the Republic and rise or fall with it— you have 
the power and the right to take the reins of government into your own hands 


and administer the law, not for foreign syndicates, but for the people of the 
United States. 

From this point we turned north, stopping at Urbana, Belle- 
fontaine, Kenton, the home of Chairman Durbin, of the State Com- 
mittee, Finlay, Bowling Green and some other places. The Kenton 
meeting was a very large one, and here a third platform gave way. 
The Toledo meetings, one outdoor and the other in a hall, were 
largely attended. We met a number of prominent bimetallists here 
and they made our stay very pleasant. 

From Toledo we went to Elkhart, Ind., passing through southern 
Michigan, speeches being made at Adrian, Hillsdale, Sturg^s, Cold- 
water and other places. At Elkhart, Gov. Matthews presided and in- 
troduced me to the large crowd there assembled. Below will be found 
a portion of the speech delivered at this place: 

Elkhart^ Ind^ Railway Sound Money Qtsbk 

I feel complimented that the distinguished executive of this g^reat State is 
present to extend a welcome in person. We in the West have always looked 
upon Indiana as friendly ground and to her people as a people of congenial 
spirit. I am glad to be permitted to discuss even briefly in your presence the 
issues of this campaign. We are entering upon a campaign which stirs men's 
hearts, a campaign which is drawing out the interest of all the people. I have 
not in all my journey from Nebraska to the sea found a single lukewarm person. 
I have found some against us, but everybody was for or against us — no idlers 
anywhere. It shows how the American people are realizing their responsi- 
bility, and preparing to exercise with intelligence and patriotism the right 
of suffrage when election day arrives. Each one must decide this question 
for himself. As we crossed the bridge I noticed a sign up, "No Driving 
Allowed." Remember that. There will be more attempts to drive in this cam- 
paign than any in recent years, more attempts to coerce and intimidate. I 
want you to have that phrase printed on a card and carry it wherever you go— 
"No driving allowed in this campaign." 

I find here a little slip printed on paper of an appropriate color, yellow. 

It says: "I, the undersigned , in the employ of ." That is 

a very appropriate blank, because the man who issued this considered the 
employe a blank. "I, , in the employ of the Railroad Com- 
pany, hereby make application for membership in the Railway Men's Sound 
Money Club." Why don't they say gold club? Why do they attempt to con- 
ceal the word gold under the euphonious name of sound money? (A voice, 
"They are ashamed of it.") Yes, I believe that is the reason. "Do hereby 
pledge myself to use my vote and influence." There is one good thing in 
this slip. If they attempt to tell you how to vote point to this and say: "It 
is my vote and not yours." "And do hereby pledge myself to use my vote and 
influence for the defeat of free coinage at the forthcoming election" — pay 
attention to this— "believing that such free coinage of silver would be injurious 


«k J ■# ■— ■ 



to my personal interests as an earner of wages, as well as disastrous to the 
United States as a nation." 

If the wage-earner ought to sign a statement declaring the free coinage 
of silver injurious to his personal interests, I want to ask you why the advo- 
cates of the gold standard who are engaged in other kinds, of business do 
not make some statement in regard to their business? Why do not the mem- 
bers of the syndicates which have been bleeding the United States Treasury 
make application for membership in a club and declare that the free coinage of 
silver is injurious to their personal interests? Why do not the bondholding 
classes in their applications state that it would be injurious to their personal 
interests? Why don't the money changers and the attorneys of the great trusts 
and corporations write in their applications that the success of the Chicago 
ticket would be injurious to their personal interest? They want it understood 
that the laboring man is influenced by his personal interests, but that the 
great leaders of the gold standard are simply interested in the public weal. 

It is only a short distance from Elkhart to South Bend, where the 
last meeting of the day was held. Here we were the guests of ex-Con* 
gressman Shively, with whom I served upon the Ways and Means 
Committee of the House of Representatives. Mr. Shively was the 
Democratic candidate for Governor last fall, and presided at the meet- 
ing. Senator Blackburn was present, having spoken to an afternoon 
meeting from the same platform. 

We reached Chicago early the following morning and I spent the 
day in consultation with the National Committee. Mrs. Bryan pro- 
ceeded to Nebraska in the evening. 




EARLY Saturday morning, in company with National Commit- 
teeman Wall and wife, ex-Governoj Peck, Mr. F. W. Von 
Cotzhausen, and other members of the Milwaukee reception 
committee, I started for that city, speaking briefly at Waukegan, 
Kenosha and Racine. The afternoon meeting at the National Park 
was interrupted by rain, or, rather, would have been interrupted, but 
for the fact that the audience insisted on staying in spite of the rain. 
Hon. W. C. Silverthorne, the Democratic and fusion candidate for 
Governor, presided at this meeting. The evening meeting at Schlitz 
Park was presided over by ex-Governor Peck. I quote at length 
from the speech delivered on this occasion because it discussed more 
fully than any other the financial policy of the administration. 

Milwaukee Speeclu 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I learned early in life that a 
public officer was but a public servant, and I think that it is an idea which 
we ought always to bear in mind. It is well for the officer himself to remember 
it, and equally important for the people to remember it. A public officer 
is simply a hired man employed at a fixed salary for a certain time to do cer- 
tain work. He is not in office merely because he wants to be; his only reason 
for being there ought to be that those whom he serves want him to be there. 
In other words, the officer is merely chosen by the people to do work which 
they must have done, and they have no reason for choosing him except that 
they believe that he can do that work for them. Officers are not elected to 
think for the people; people are supposed to think for themselves. They are 
elected to act for the people, simply because the people are so numerous that 
they cannot act for themselves. An officer, I might say, is a necessary evil. 
It would be better for the people if they could act for themselves, but that 
being impossible, they must do the next best thing and act through some one 
else; and the beauty of our form of government is that, instead of acting 
through somebody who rules by right divine, our people act through representa- 
tives whom they themselves choose and whom they can turn out of office when- 
ever they so desire. 

Since the public officer is elected to carry out your ideas, it is important 
that you should know, first, for what policies a candidate stands, and second, 
whether he will carry out those policies, if elected. You can find from read- 
ing the platform upon which a candidate runs for what policy he stands, and 
then you have to judge from what you know of him whether he can be relied 



upon to carry out the policies which are presented in his platform. There 
is no way of telling absolutely except by trial. I come to you standing upon 
a platform. While you may not agree to everything in that platform, it is 
only fair that any man who stands upon a platform should himself believe in 
the platform. I believe in the platform, not because I stand upon it — I believe 
in it because it presents doctrines which I believed in before they were written 
in that platform, and I have reasons for the faith which is in me. Every plat- 
form embraces a large number of subjects, because at all times government 
covers various questions, but it is also true that in every election there is 
generally one issue which rises above all other issues and which, more than 
any other, engrosses the thoughts of the people. In selecting the party which 
he will support in any campaign, the citizen takes the paramount issue, that 
thing which he thinks is more important than other things, and by that para- 
mount issue determines his allegiance. In this campaign we have suffered 
some desertions. Why? Because our platform, departing from what has 
sometimes been the custom, is straight, clear and emphatic on the leading 
questions. It is easy to hold all the members of the party together if your 
platform means nothing and the people are willing to submit to plat- 
forms which may mean anything or nothing according to construction; but 
whenever a party takes a firm position on any great question, it must expect 
that those who do not believe with the party will feel justified in leaving it, 
provided they can find somewhere else an expression of their ideas. I say, 
this must be expected. 

But, my friends, we reached a time when decided action was necessary. 
This money question which today overshadows all other questions has been 
thrust upon the American people, not so much by the advocates of free coinage 
as by the opponents of free coinage. What has brought it to the attention of the 
American people? As soon as the last campaign closed, the monied interests of 
this country made a combined attack on what was known as the Sherman law. 
They demanded the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman law, and 
they based their attack upon the platform of the Democratic party of 1892; 
but instead of enforcing that platform as a whole, they picked out a part of 
a sentence and insisted upon enforcing it, while they ignored the rest of the 
platform. The Democratic party denounced the Sherman law as a makeshift. 
What is a makeshift? Why, it is a temporary expedient. It is a thing 
used until some better thing can be secured, and the very plank in the platform 
that declared in favor of the repeal of the makeshift, asserted that we held 
to the use of gold and silver as the standard money of the country, and not that 
only, but that platform added that gold and silver should be coined without 
discrimination against either metal, or charge for mintage. This declaration was 
followed by certain qualifying words, but these qualifying words did not destroy 
the declaration of the Democratic party for the coinage of gold and silver 
upon equal terms, and yet the monied interests of this country combined to at- 
tack the Sherman law, secure its repeal and leave nothing in its place to furnish, 
the money which the people need. They said that gold was going abroad 
and that if they repealed the Sherman law gold would stop going abroad. 
After a struggle that has seldom been equaled, they succeeded in repealing 
the Sherman law without condition, and then what? Did gold stop going 


abroad? No, gold went abroad faster than before; and then what? Then they be- 
gan to issue bonds to get enough gold to supply those who wanted to send it 
abroad, or who wanted to put it away m their vaults, or wanted to create an 
excuse for the issue of more bonds. They issued fifty million dollars' worth 
of bonds, and then fifty million dollars more of bonds, and then the administra- 
tion entered into what is known as the Rothschild contract. 

My friends, let me dwell just a moment upon that contract. I call your 
attention to the fact that while that contract was made by a Democratic adminis- 
tration, it was supported by all the leading members of the Republican party, 
and more than that, the Republican party in convention assembled did not 
denounce or criticise that contract. Why? Because the men who wrote 
the Republican platform have always justified the President's conduct Now, 
I want to say to you that, in my judgment, that was the most infamous 
contract that was ever entered into by this nation. That contract at an enormous 
price employed certain financiers in New York and London, to do what? To 
look after the Treasury and protect it. Do you know what it means to employ 
a man to protect your treasury? When you purchase his good will you con- 
fess that if you did not purchase it you would not get it, and when you buy it 
at a high price, you admit that his good will is very valuable to you. I want 
you to remember, my friends, that if this nation is dependent upon the good will 
of one banking firm in New York and one banking firm in London, the very 
moment you confess it you put it in the power of those two firms to charge 
whatever they please for their good will towards this Government, and I am not 
willing to admit that this Government exists by sufferance. I am not willing 
to admit that we have reached an extremity where it becomes necessary for 
us to purchase the good will of any syndicate, foreign or domestic. More 
than that, I assert that 70,000,000 people, in their majesty and strength, have 
a government, or should have a goverment, which can not only live without 
the aid of these syndicates, but can live in spite of anything that these syn- 
dicates may do. I am not surprised that members of that syndicate are op- 
posed to the Democratic party. I am not surprised at all, because the Demo- 
cratic party believes that this Government can get along without them; and 
more than that, the Democratic party believes that, if they imagine they can 
injure this Government and dare to try it, they ought to be treated like any 
other conspirators. ' 

Cicero, it is related, once said to his son: ''Do not go into the retail 
business; the retail business is a small and vulgar business. Go into the whole- 
sale business; that is a respectable business." 

My friends, this doctrine seems to be applied to those who would injure 
the Government. If a man attempts to do the Government a small injury, he is 
a contemptible man and ought to be punished, but if he attempts to do the 
Government a great injury, he goes into the wholesale business and becomes 
respectable, and then the Government must negotiate with him. When our 
Constitution was based upon the theory that all men were created equal and 
stood equal before the law, there was no provision in there making an excep- 
tion in behalf of financiers and asserting that they are greater than anybody 

I warn you, fellow citizens, against entertaining the opinion of government 



that our opponents seem to entertain. To say that anything less than a ma- 
jority has the right to dictate the financial policy of this country is to abandon 
the theory upon which our Government is founded. Either the majority must 
rule, or the minority; and if a few people insist upon making the laws of this 
country on any question, then upon that question we have minority rule instead 
of majority rule. 

We may differ as to what kind of financial legislation is best, but there 
is one question upon which we must agree, if we believe that our people 
are capable of self government and that our institutions deserve to be perpetu- 
ated. There is one question upon which we must agree, and that is, that the 
American people, acting through their Constitution and their laws, are the 
only power to determine what is good for the American people and what the 
American people shall have in the way of legislation. 

I have called your attention to the Rothschild contract. Do you know 
why that contract was entered into? There was a reason given and the only 
reasonable one — I do not mean reasonable to those who believe in bimetallism — 
but reasonable enough for those who believe in the gold standard. 

When the Government sold bonds at home, the officials in charge of 
the Treasury saw that people went to the Treasury and drew out a part of 
the gold to pay for the bonds; therefore the Treasury officials thought that 
they would try to sell the bonds abroad in order to avoid the necessity of 
furnishing the gold to pay for the bonds. 

I believe that if our people understood what was possible — what is not 
only possible, but what is the actual practice under the present financial system 
as practiced by the present administration — they would rise in a unanimous 
revolt against that policy. 

Let me show you what has been done. The Government decided to issue 
$50,000,000 of bonds to buy gold. Now suppose you want to buy bonds. You 
go to the Secretary of the Treasury and he says that he has some bonds to 
sell, and you hand him a thousand dollars in greenbacks and Treasury notes. 
He says, **I cannot accept these notes;" and you say, "Why not?" Are not these 
greenbacks and Treasury notes good?" He says, "Yes, they are good for 
most things, but these bonds are sold to obtain gold; therefore, we must demand 
gold for the bonds." You say to him, "All right, Mr. Secretary, if you will not 
give me the bonds for these greenbacks and Treasury notes, I will just deposit 
them and demand their redemption in gold." The Secretary says, "That is 
all right; that is what we are here for;" and he hands out the gold. Then you 
say to him, "Do I not understand that you have some bonds for sale for which 
you want gold?" and he says, "Yes," and you hand him the gold and say to 
him, "Here, Mr. Secretary, is the gold, now give me the bonds." 

Do you believe that that is possible? It is possible under the present 
policy. Do you believe that anybody in this country has done it? It has been 
done under the present administration of the Treasury. When the Treasurer 
issued the first fifty millions of dollars of bonds, the amount of gold drawn 
out during the time between the publication of the notice and the issue of the 
bonds was something like eighteen million dollars. In other words, to the 
extent of the money withdrawn for the purpose of buying bonds the Government 
simply allowed the gold to pass out of the Treasury, and then sold bonds to 


buy it back. When they issued the next fifty million, a still larger amount of 
gold was withdrawn to pay for the bonds. Then they made the Rothschild 
contract. They simply enlarged the circle a little, that was all; and before 
the time was up, during which this syndicate agreed to protect the Treasury, 
bonds which had been sent to Europe and sold at 1.045^ had. been brought 
back from Europe and sold in the New York market for more than 1.20 and the 
gold taken back to Europe again. This is financiering as it is taught in New 

Then they issued the next hundred million, and I want to call your atten- 
tion to that issue. It was first suggested that the bonds be issued at private 
sale, and a syndicate was formed for the purpose of purchasing the bonds. 
It was stated in the paper at the time that that syndicate would give about 1.05 
for the bonds. Finally it was decided to issue the bonds at public auction, and 
J. Pierpont Morgan, the head of the syndicate that started out to buy the 
bonds at 1.05, within a few minutes of the time for the opening of the bids, 
handed in another bid for and a fraction, raising the bid formerly made by 
about five millions of dollars on the purchase of a hundred millions of dollars 
of bonds. What does that mean? It means that these financiers, when they 
thought they had the Government at their mercy, were going to let it have 
gold at 1.05, but when others came in and offered to bid, they raised their bid 
more than five millions of dollars. What does that mean? It means that these 
people who pose as guardians of the Treasury — these people who are the self- 
appointed custodians of public credit and national honor — would have bled the 
taxpayers of this country to the extent of five millions of dollars on a single 
transaction, if they had been permitted to do so. But that did not excite the 
indignation of those who were standing in official positions. Not only did it 
not excite their indignation, but the very man who stood at the head of the 
syndicate and tried to beat the people of the United States out of five millions of 
dollars was an honored guest at a banquet at which the Secretary of the 
Treasury was the chief guest. 

Now, my friends, if we believe in the principles upon which this Government 
is founded — if we believe in equality before the law — then I assert that we cannot 
treat a man who wants to beat the people out of $5,000,000 with more considera- 
tion than we do the man who tcies to beat the people out of one hundred dollars 
or out of five dollars. 

When is this going to end? They tell us that it is necessary to maintain 
the honor of the country. My friends, I may be in error, but I believe that 
the honor of this nation can be better maintained by intrusting its affairs to the 
seventy millions of people who constitute our nation than by bartering away 
its credit to a handful of millionaires. The Republican party does not protest 
against this kind of administration of the Treasury Department The Demo- 
cratic party does protest against it, and what is the result? Every man who 
has been profiting out of the extremities of the Government, and using the 
instrumentalities of the Government for public plunder, has left our party 
to find a congenial home elsewhere. They have left our party to find a 
home in the party which offers them a continuation of that sort of a policy. 

When will this policy end? There is but one end to it; there is only one 
way to stop this constant issue of bonds, and that is to return to the principle 


of bimetallism and allow the Government to exercise the option of redeeming 
its coin obligations in either gold or silver. When I have seen how they go to 
the Treasury and draw out the gold and then demand bonds, and then draw 
out gold to pay for the bonds, and so on .without limit, I have been reminded of a 
trick that a mother played upon her boy. He was taking some medicine and the 
following dialogue took place between him and a visitor: "Do you like that 
medicine?" "No sir." "Well, you seem to take it very nicely." "Mamma gives 
me five cents every time I take a dose of it." "What do you do with the 
money?" "I put it in the bank." "And what do you do with the money in the 
bank?" "Oh, mamma uses that to buy more medicine with." 

Our opponents tell us that, if we will retire the greenbacks and Treasury 
notes, this drain on the Treasury will stop. I ask them how it will stop. Why, 
they say that the banks will issue paper money and assume the obligation of 
furnishing whatever gold is needed for export. 

There is one thing that has always bothered me in this proposition. If these 
banks are in earnest in their desire to relieve the Treasury Department of the 
burden of furnishing gold for export, they need not change the law. All they 
need to do is to save up all the gold they can and stand ready to help the 
Treasury by furnishing it with that gold. It does not need any statute, my 
friends, to give to these people, who seem to be longing to help their country, 
an opportunity to do so. They can do it now without any change in the 
law. Nothing illustrates their manner of dealing with the Government better 
than their recent conduct. After increasing the bonded debt of this country and 
bleeding the Treasury at every opportunity, they have suddenly come to the 
conclusion that another bond issue before election would have disastrous con- 
sequences, and, therefore, they are trying to bolster up the Treasury by the 
importation of a few million dollars of gold until after the emergency is passed. 
What is going to be the result after the election is over? The gold which 
they now furnish in exchange for Treasury notes and greenbacks can be with- 
drawn the next day after the election by the presentation of greenbacks and 
Treasury notes. Having blinded the people during the election period, they will 
then bleed them for another four years until there is another election. 

I want to call your attention to the fact that the retirement of greenbacks 
and Treasury notes will not remedy this condition. The only reason for retiring 
the greenbacks and Treasury notes is to permit the banks to issue notes upon 
bonds and thus collect the interest which the people now save. It is simply a 
question whether the national banks shall have this interest or whether the 
people shall save it. If there is anybody who feels that he does not pay taxes 
enough— if his conscience troubles him because he has contributed too little 
to the support of the Government, let him make a voluntary contribution to the 
Treasury of the United States and thus relieve his conscience of the strain that 
is put upon it. Suppose you wipe out all the greenbacks and Treasury notes 
and have the banks issue paper money; they are allowed^ under the law to pay 
out either gold or silver, just as the Government can now. If the banks should 
refuse to furnish gold without charging a premium, would you not have the 
same condition which you have now? Do you believe the banks would always 
furnish the kind of money which the people wanted when they presented their 
notes? If you think so, refresh your memories by going back to the time of 


the war. The national bank notes are payable in lawful money, and a bank at 
any time during the war could redeem its notes either in gold, silver or green- 
backs. Which did the banks use? Did they use any gold? Oh, no, for gold 
was at a premium then. Did they use any silver? No, for silver was at a 
higher premium than gold. What did they issue? They used the cheapest 
money they could get. The greenbacks were the money used to redeem the 
bank notes. The greenback has always been as good as the bank note, because 
the greenback always stood behind the bank note; and if the greenback is good 
enough to stand behind a bank note, it is good enough to stand in the open with- 
out any bank note in front of it. But suppose we wipe out the greenbacks and 
Treasury notes, then what? I venture the assertion that the very people who 
today say that the Government cannot keep every dollar as good as every 
other dollar except by redeeming all the greenbacks and Treasury notes in gold, 
if gold is demanded — ^those very people, if greenbacks and Treasury notes are 
taken out of the way. will insist that the Government cannot keep every dollar 
as good as every other dollar unless it stands ready to redeem every silver dollar 
and every silver certificate in gold, if gold is demanded; and if they do that then 
they start another endless chain. My friends, the fault is not with the green- 
back or with the Treasury note; the fault is in the construction place upon the 
law and in the policy of those who are in charge of the administration of the 
Government, and who are surrendering the choice of the coin to be used in pay- 
ment. We must either have two kinds of money which are equally a legal tender 
and can be used by the Government at its option, or we must have only one. If 
we are going to have two kinds of legal tender money which the people can use 
to pay the debts which they owe to the Government, that money must be used 
by the Government in paying the debts which it owes to the people. 

I have pointed out the plan by which we propose to relieve the Government 
of its difficulties. Let me leave you with one other thought for your considera- 
tion. The Republican party in its platform expressly states that the financial 
policy of this nation must be determined by foreign nations rather than ours. 
The platform says that the Republican party pledges itself to secure international 
bimetallism as soon as possible, but that, until that can be secured, we must 
maintain the gold standard. What does that mean? It means that bimetallism 
is better than a gold standard, but that we cannot have that better thing until 
the leading commercial nations of Europe shall consent to its adoption. Does 
it say that we must bear the affliction of a gold standard for a year? No, it docs 
not limit to a year. For four years? No, it does not limit it to four years. 
How long? According to the Republican platform we must bear the affliction 
of a gold standard forever, if foreign nations insist upon it. 

I want to call your attention to what some one has said about the influence 
of foreign nations and foreign personages in the affairs of our nation. Be silent 
while I read these words : 

Against the insidlouff wiles of foreign nations (I conjure you to believe me, fellow 
citizens), the Jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and 
experience prove that foreign influence Is one of the most baneful foes of republican 

There is the language which I desire to press upon your memories. It is 
not my language. Whose language do you suppose that it? What man. 


"trying to stir up the passions of our people against foreigners;" what dema- 
gogue "appealing to the mob to justify his course;" what anarchist do you 
suppose used those words? Those are the words of George Washington. If 
George Washington could warn his countrymen against the evil effects of 
foreign influence, if George Washington could say to his countrymen that 
foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes to republican government, 
may I not repeat what he said almost one hundred years after the date of 
its first utterance? If it was true then, it is true now. My friends, I warn 
you against entrusting the destinies of this nation to legislative bodies which 
are beyond your control. How can you reach your own Government? How 
can you change your own laws? You can do it at the ballot box. If the 
law is bad you can repeal it. If you want a good law enacted you can write 
it upon the statute books when the majority concur. But suppose you turn 
over to other nations the power to determine when you shall have bimetal- 
lism. How can you get them to act? Can you vote men into office in 
foreign nations? No, it is not within your power, either to elect or discard. 
How can you get at them? Send them a petition; that is the way to do 
it. If the Republican party is going to carry out this policy it ought to 
have at every public meeting a blank petition, to be signed by the people 
present, asking foreign nations to please give us bimetallism. What is your 
chance by petition? Why, my friends, for twenty years and more the 
people of this nation, the producers of wealth, the toiling masses have 
petitioned all parties to give them bimetallism, and when the Republican party 
met in St. Louis the wail of distress arising from our people was loud 
enough to have been heard by anybody whose ears were not entirely occupied 
with the sounds that come from Wall street. Did they hear your petitions? 
No, they disregarded them. I ask you, Republicans, if the Republican party, 
which you helped to make, was deaf to your entreaties, what hope have you 
of making an impression upon foreign legislative bodies? I ask you, Re- 
publicans, who have been the bone and sinew of the Republican party since 
the time it elected Lincoln, if the Republican party does not have mercy 
when you cry, how can you expect to find pity in a nation from which your 
forfathers wrested the empire in which we live? There are people who 
honestly believe that this nation is not strong enough to contend against 
the money centers of the world. Well, if a man believes it, we cannot criticise 
him for expressing his belief at the ballot box, but I want to ask you, 
who, of the people who are opposed to the free coinage of silver, would 
be willing to print upon a card, "I do not think my nation is big enough 
to take care of itself," and put it in his hat and wear it from now until 
election day? And yet that is what every man says who says that we 
ought to get rid of the gold standard and have bimetallism, but that we 
cannot do it until some other nations help us. 

I want to leave to you this parting word: I am not here to ask 
for your votes. I have too much respect for the sovereignty of the citizen 
to appeal to him to present to me his vote as a gift. It is his own, 
not to part with by begging or by selling. It is his own, not to surrender 
under threat or coercion; it is his own to do with what he pleases. But 
when I surrender all claim to the votes of those who believe that the restora- 


tion of the free coinage of silver by this nation alone would be injurious, 
I assert my claims to the votes of those who believe in the immediate restora- 
tion of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present 
legal ratio of i6 to i, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other 

Later I addressed a large overflow meeting held near by. Sunday 
was spent at the hospitable home of Chairman Wall, and it is remem- 
bered as one of the most restful Sabbaths of the campaign. Bishop 
Samuel Fallows, of Chicago, was in Milwaukee on that day and I had 
the pleasure of listening to him at the morning service. The trip to 
Chicago Monday morning was made without special incident. 



LABOR day deserves a chapter by itself. An invitation to speak 
in Chicago on Labor day was extended to me soon after the 
National Convention by the Building Trades Council of that 
city, but it was not until a short time before the day arrived that I 
found it possible to give a definite reply. The forenoon was devoted 
to a parade, which was said to be one of the most imposing ever 
held on such an occasion. During the forenoon a committee of horse- 
shoers called and on behalf of their order presented a silver horseshoe, 
which now occupies a place in my cabinet. I might add here that 
during the campaign some twenty horseshoes were received from 
various sources, some solid silver, some silver-plated, some of polished 
steel and some old and rusty, just as they were picked up in the 
road. The horseshoe is said to bring good luck to its possessor; I 
leave each reader to determine for himself whether the horseshoe 
has lost its charm, whether too many horseshoes suspend the oper- 
ation of the rule, or whether, after all, the result was fortunate 
for me. In the afternoon a committee consisting of Messrs. Edward 
Carroll, president of the Building Trades Council, John J. Ryan, 
chairman of the committee of speakers, and J. D. McKinley, chairman 
of the Carpenters' District Committee, called and accompanied me to 
Sharpshooters' Park. Here a large and enthusiastic crowd was as- 
sembled. My speech on this occasion is given below; 

Labor Day Speech* 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I desire to thank the Building 
Trades Council for the opportunity to speak to the people assembled today. 
Labor day has become a fixed event among our holidays, and it is well 
that it is so, because on this day, all over the nation, those who are 
engaged in the production of wealth meet with each other to discuss the 
questions in which working men are especially interested, and to emphasize 
before the world that there is nothing dishonorable in the fact that one 
earns his bread in the sweat of his face. I am glad to stand in the presence 
of those to whom this nation is so largely indebted for all that it has been, for 
all that it is now, and for all that it can hope to be. 

I am not indulging in idle flattery when I say to you that no other people 



are so important to the welfare of society as those whose brain and muscle con- 
vert the natural resources of the world into material wealth. 

I call your attention to the language of Hon. John G. Carlisle, in 1878, 
when he described these people as ''the struggling masses who produce the 
wealth and pay the taxes of the country." He did not praise them too highly. 
"The struggling masses'' not only produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the 
country in time of peace, but "the struggling masses" have ever been, and 
must ever be, the nation's surest protection in time of peril. 

Abraham Lincoln expressed himself strongly upon this subject. In a 

message to Congress, in 1861, he said: 

Monarchy Itielf U Bometimea hinted at as a possible refuge from the power of 
the people. In my present position I could scarcely be Justified were'I to omit raising 
a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. It is not needed or 
fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institu- 
tions, but there is one point with its connection not so hackneyed as most others, to 
which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing 
with, if not above, labor in the structure of government; it is assumed that labor is 
available only in connection with capital, that nobody labors unless somebody else 
owning capital somehow, by the use of it, induces him to labor. 

And then he adds: 

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, 
and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of 
capital and deserves much the higher consideration. 

And mark these words of his: 

No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from 
poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly 
earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess 
and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the doors of advancement 
against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of 
liberty shall be lost. 

These are the words of Lincoln. They were not intended to arouse ani- 
mosity against capital, but they state a great truth that ought always to be re- 
membered — that capital is but the fruit of labor, and that labor cannot be 
destroyed without destroying the possibility of future capital. 

I have quoted from two of our public men. Let me now read to you the 

language used by one whose words have won for him the title of the wisest 

of men — Solomon. He said: 

Qlve me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me, lest I 
be full, and deny Thee and say, who is the Lord? Or lest I be poor, and steal and take 
the name of my Ood In vain. 

Solomon desired neither poverty nor riches. He rightly estimated the dangers 
which lie at either extreme and preferred the — I was about to say, golden, but 
will call it the — golden and silver mean. Neither great wealth nor abject pov- 
erty furnishes the soil in which the best civilization grows. Those who are hard 
pressed by poverty lose the ambition, the inspiration and the high purpose 
which lead men to the greatest achievements; while those who possess too 
great riches lack the necessity for that labor which is absolutely essential to 
the development of all that is useful. Solomon was right, therefore, when he 
praised the intermediate condition, for the great middle classes are the bul- 
wark of society, and from them has come almost all the good that has blessed 
the human race. 


The highest compliment ever paid to any class of people was paid to those 
who are called the common people. When we use that term there are some 
who say that we are appealing to the passions of the masses; there are some 
who apply the name demagogue to anybody who speaks of the common people. 
When the meek and lowly Nazarene came to preach "peace on earth, good will 
toward men," he was not welcomed by those who "devour widow's houses and 
for a pretense make long prayers." By whom was he welcomed? The Scrip- 
tures tell us that when he gave that great commandment, "Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself," the common people heard him gladly. This, I repeat, is 
the highest compliment that has ever been paid to any class of people, and the 
common people are the only people who have ever received gladly the doctrines 
of humanity and equality. 

I do not mean to say that there have been no exceptions to the general 
rule. There have always been found among the richer classes those who 
were filled with the spirit of philanthropy, those who were willing to spend 
their lives in the uplifting of their fellows. But I am now speaking of 
general rules, not of exceptions. Nor do I mean that there have never been 
found among the common people those who would betray their fellows. 
Everywhere, at all times and in all classes of society, the character of Judas 
has been found. On the dark page of all history appears the name of the 
man who betrays his brother. Yet in spite of these exceptions, the common 
people have been the great and controlling force which has lifted civilization 
to higher ground. 

There have been three important forms of government. First, the mon- 
archy, in which the king rules by right divine; second, the aristocracy, in which 
the few govern; and, third, the democracy, in which the people rule. Why is it 
that the strength of democracy — I do not use the word in a party sense, 
but in its broader meaning — why is it that the strength of democracy has always 
been found among the common people? The reason is simple enough. If a 
man has high position, great ability, or great wealth he may be able to keep 
on the good side of the king. If he possess great influence he may secure a 
place as one of the ruling class in an aristocracy. But there is no form of 
government which the masses dare leave to their children except a democracy 
in which each citizen is protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness. The great common people believe in a democratic form 
of government because it is only under a democratic form of government that 
they are able to fully protect their rights and defend their interests. 

Let me call your attention for a moment to the objects of government. 
Our Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. What 
kind of government will people consent to? Only that kind which protects 
all and knows no favoritism. The people desire a government in which all 
citizens stand upon the same plane without regard to wealth or position in 
society. A government which guarantees equal rights to all and confers 
special privileges upon none is the government which appeals to the affections 
of the common people. 

There are two things to be especially considered in government. The first 
is that in the enactment of all legislation no advantage should be given to 
one person over another if that advantage can be avoided. It is the duty of 


government to protect all from injustice and to do so without showing partiality 
for any one or any class. Again, government must restrain men from injuring 
one another. Jefferson declared this to be one of the important duties of 
government, and the government which does not restrain the strongest citizen 
from injuring the weakest citizen fails to do its whole duty. An idea is the 
most important thing that a person can get into his head, and we gather our 
ideas from every source. I was passing through Iowa some months ago and 
got an idea from some hogs. I noticed a number of hogs rooting in a field 
and tearing up the ground. The first thought that came to me was that they 
were destroying property, and that carried me back to the time when I lived on 
a farm, and I remembered that we put rings in the noses of our hogs. And 
why? Not to keep the hogs from getting fat, for we were more interested in 
their getting fat than they were; the sooner they became fat, the sooner we 
killed them; the longer they were in getting fat, the longer they lived. But 
we put rings in the noses of the hogs so that while they were getting fat they 
would not destroy more property than they were worth. And then it occurred 
to me that one of the most important duties of government is to put rings 
in the noses of hogs. Now, my friends, do not consider this a reflection 
upon your neighbor. We are all hoggish to a certain extent and need re- 
straining. We are all selfish and need to have that selfishness curbed. The 
Creator did not make any class of people who are entirely unselfish. I can prove 
by you that your neighbors are selfish, and I can prove by your neighbors 
that you are selfish, but I have faith in our form of government because 
the people in their better moments arc willing to enact laws which will re- 
strain them in the hours of temptation. We submit to restraint upon our- 
selves in order that others may be restrained from injuring us. 

When I say that one of the duties of government is to put rings in the 
noses of hogs, I simply mean that, while society is interested in having every 
citizen become independent and self-supporting, that while society is interested 
in having every citizen secure enough of this world's goods to supply his own 
wants, educate his children, and leave him something for his declining days, 
yet society is also interested in having laws which will prevent any citizen from 
destroying more than he is worth while he is securing his own independence. 

Ours is the best form of government known among men because it can 
be made to reflect the best intelligence, the highest virtue, and the purest 
patriotism of the people. In other words, our form of government is the best 
because it can be made as good as we deserve to have. Let me warn you 
against confusing government itself with the abuses of government. Andrew 
Jackson said that there were no necessary evils in government; that its evils 
existed only in its abuses. He was right, my friends. There are no necessary 
evils in government, and no man who understands the advantages of govern- 
ment will ever raise his voice or hand against it. It is the abuses of government 
against which we have a right to complain. There are those who stand 
ready to denounce as a disturber of the public peace anyone who criticises the 
abuses of government; and this denunciation is generally most severe from 
those who are enjoying the advantages which arise from the abuses complained 
of. The reformer is generally accused of stirring up discontent. I desire to 
remind you that discontent lies at the foundation of all progress. So long 

LABOR DA Y. 379 

as you are satisfied, you never move forward. It is only when you are dissat- 
isfied with present conditions that you try to improve them. Why, my friends, 
had our forefathers been satisfied with English political supremacy we never 
would have had a Declaration of Independence. They were not content with 
the conditions under which they lived, and they put that expression of discon- 
tent into the form of a Declaration of Independence, and maintained that decla- 
ration with their blood. That discontent gave us our form of government. 
There is one great difference between our form of government and the 
monarchial form. If the people are discontented under a monarchy they can 
petition, but their petition may be disregarded. Discontent under a monarchy 
may end in despair or it may end in revolution. Discontent under our form 
of government ends in reform through the peaceful means of the ballot. 

I am not going to violate the proprieties of this occasion by entering into 
the discussion of partisan questions. But I desire to call your attention to 
certain broad questions which cannot be confined within party lines. 

The ballot is the weapon by which the people of this country must right 
every legislative wrong. Whenever they lack the intelligence and patriotism 
to right their wrongs at the ballot box they will be unable to right them in any 
other way. 

The ballot, to be effective, must be used; and conditions arose in this 
country which made it impossible for all the people to use the ballot which 
they had. Because of the circumstances which surrounded them, many men 
were afraid to exercise freely and according to conscience the political rights 
given to them under our institutions. What did they do? They demanded 
a reform in the ballot laws. I honor the laboring men of this country and the 
labor organizations which stand at the head of the wage-earning classes be- 
cause they secured the Australian ballot for themselves and for the people at 
large. That ballot law did not come down to the laboring men from the 
capitalistic classes; it came as a result of their own demand. The laboring men 
today enjoy the advantages of the Australian ballot because they compelled 
its adoption. 

Among all the agencies which for the past few years have been at work 
improving the condition and protecting the rights of the wage earners, I 
believe that labor organizations stand first. They have brought the laboring 
men together where they could compare their views, unite their strength and 
combine their influence, and we have these organizations to thank for many 
of the blessings which have been secured for those who toil. Some have 
criticised and condemned labor organizations. Some believe that banks should 
join associations, that railroad managers should join associations, that all the 
large corporations should join associations, but that laboring men should not 
organize. Yet labor organizations have been the means by which working men 
have protected themselves in their contests. The labor organizations have 
done much for society in another way. 

I refer to the arbitration of differences between employers and employes. 
That principle has been brought to the attention of the American people by the 
laboring men of the country. I believe in arbitration. The principle is not new; 
it is simply an extension of the court of justice. Arbitration provides an im- 
partial tribunal before which men may settle their differences instead of resort- 


ing to violence. New conditions necessitate new laws. In former years when 
one man employed a few men to work for him, there was an intimate ac- 
quaintance between employer and employe, and that intimate acquaintance 
developed a personal sympathy which regulated their dealings with each other. 
All this is changed. Now when one corporation employs thousands and even 
tens of thousands of persons, personal acquaintance between employer and em- 
ploye is impossible. The law must therefore supply the element of justice 
which was formerly supplied by personal acquaintance and sympathy. Arbi- 
tration is not only good for employer and employe, but is necessary for the 
security of society. Society has, in fact, higher claims than either employer or 
employe. The whole people are disturbed by the conflicts between labor and 
capital, and the best interests of society demand that these differences shall be 
submitted to and settled by courts of arbitration rather than by trials of 

I am not here to tell you what opinions you should hold. I am not here to 
discuss the measures which, in my judgment, would relieve present conditions. 
But as an American citizen speaking to American citizens, I have a right to 
urge you to recognize the responsibilities which rest upon you, and to prepare 
yourselves for the intelligent discharge of every political duty imposed upon 
you. Government was not instituted among men to confer special privileges 
upon any one, but rather to protect all citizens alike in order that they may 
enjoy the fruits of their own toil. It is the duty of government to make the 
conditions surrounding the people as favorable as possible. You must have 
your opinions, and, by expressing those opinions, must have your influence 
in determining what these conditions shall be. If you find a large number of 
men out of employment, you have a right to inquire whether such idleness is 
due to natural laws or whether it is due to vicious legislation. If it is due to 
legislation, then it is not only your right but your duty to change that legisla- 
tion. The greatest menace to the employed laborer today is the increasing army 
of the unemployed. It menaces every man who holds a position, and, if that 
army continues to increase, it is only a question of time when those who are, as 
you may say, on the ragged edge, will leave the ranks of the employed to join 
those who are out of work. 

I am one of those who believe that if you increase the number of those 
who cannot find work and yet must eat, you will drive men to desperation 
and increase the ranks of the criminals by the addition of many who would be 
earning bread under better conditions. If you find idleness and crime in- 
creasing, it is not your privilege only, it is a duty which you owe to yourselves 
and to your country to consider whether the conditions cannot be improved. 

Now a word in regard to the ballot I beg you to remember that it was 
not given to you by your employer; nor was it given to you for his use. The 
right to vote was conferred upon you by law. You had it before you became 
an employe; it will still be yours after your employment ceases. You do not 
tell your employer that you will quit working for him unless he votes as you 
desire, and yet you have as much right to say that to him as he has to tell you 
that you will have to quit working for him unless you vote as he wants you to. 
When I say this, I am not afraid of offending anybody, for it is impossible to 
offend an employer who thinks that he has a right to control the vote of his 


^^n.<tt—^.t~ '^'2Lt<*^^-t^ 

LABOR DA r. 383 

employe became he pays him wagei. I have known men who thought that, be- 
cause they loaned money to a man, he must vote as they wanted him to or risk 
foreclosure. 1 am not afraid of offending any man who entertains this belief, 
because a man who will use a loan to intimidate a citizen or deprive him ol his 
independence has yet to learn the genius of the institutions under which we live. 
I cannot impress upon you any more important truth than this: that your 
ballot is your own to do with it what you please and that you have only to 
satisfy your own judgment and conscience. 

There is one chizen in ihis country who can prove himself unworthy of 
the ballot which has been given to him, and he is the citizen who either sells 
it or permits it to be wrested from him under coercion. Whenever a man offers 
you pay for your vote he insults your manhood, and you ought to have no re- 
spect for him. And the man, who instead of insulting your manhood by an offer 
of purchase, attempts to intimidate you to coerce you, insults your citizenship 
M well as your manhood. 

My friends, in this world people have just about as much of good as they 
deserve. At least, the best way to secure anything that is desirable is to first 
deserve that thing. If the people ol this country want good laws, they them- 
selves must secure them.- If the people want to repeal bad laws, they alone have 
the power to do it. In a government like ours every year offers the citizen an 
opportunity to prove his love of country. Every year offers him an opportunity 
to manifest his patriotism. 

It is said that vigilance is the price of liberty. Yes, it is not only Ihe price 
of national liberty, but it is the price of individual liberty as well. The citizen 
who is the most watchful of his public servants has the best chance of living 
under good laws and beneficent institutions. The citizen who is careless and 
indifTerent is most likely to be the victim of misrule. 

Let me leave with you this parting word. Whatever may be our views on 
political questions, whatever may be our positions upon the issues which arise 
from time to time, it should be the highest ambition of each one of ns to prove 
himself worthy of that greatest of all names — an American citiaen. 

Dr. Barth, an eminent German mo no metal list, who visited this 
country during the campaign, was an interested spectator. The ci^wd 
was so demonstrative in its evidences of friendliness that our party 
had difficulty in making its exit. 

Going from the Labor Day celebration to the Burlington depot, I 
boarded the train for the West, and after brief stops at Aurora, Men- 
dota, Galesburg, Monmouth, and a few other places, arrived in 
Lincoln on Tuesday morning. I give below a detailed statement of 
route : 

Mileage on Stooad Trip. 

Lincoln to Chicago, over Rock Island railway 555 miles 

Chicago to New York, over Pennsylvania railway 913 " 

New York to Buffalo, over New York Central 440 " 

Buffalo to Erie and return, over Lake Shore & Michigan 

Southern 176 " 

rtfir'-r- - 



Bn£Falo to Niagara Falls, electric line 22 miles 

Niagara Falls to Knowlesville and return, over New York 

Central 56 " 

Niagara Falls to Hamellsville, over Erie railway 113 " 

Homellsville to Jamestown, N. Y., over Erie railway 116 " 

Jamestown to Ripley, by electric car, boat and buggy, about, jo " 
Ripley to Cleveland, Ohio, over Lake Shore & Michigan 

Southern 118 " 

Cleveland to Columbus, over Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland 

& St Louis 138 " 

Columbus to Springfield, over Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleve- 
land & St. Louis 25 " 

Springfield to Kenton, over Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland 

& St. Louis 56 " 

Kenton to Toledo, over Toledo & Ohio Central 72 " 

Toledo to Chicago, over Lake Shore & Michigan Southern 243 " 

Chicago to Milwaukee and return, over Northwestern railw'y 170 " 

Chicago to Lincoln, over Burlington railway 555 " 

Short trips in neighborhood of Upper Red Hook, N. Y 100 " 

Total miles traveled second trip 3,898 



SEPTEMBER 2d the bolting Democrats met in convention at In- 
dianapolis, Ind. Ex-Gov. Flower, of New York, was chosen 
temporary chairman, and Senator Don Caffery, of Louisiana, 
permanent chairman. Both made speeches of some length and both 
denounced the Chicago convention and its nominees. 
Mr. Flower began by saying: 

Mr* Fk>wer^8 Speech* 

This gathering is notice to the world that the Democratic party has not 
yet surrendered to populism and anarchy. By our presence here we emphasize 
the genuine character of our democracy and demonstrate the patriotic nature of 
our partisanship. There have been numerous instances in political history 
where, in the name of party loyalty, men have justified their non-support 
of party platforms or candidates, and in many of such cases has the move- 
ment failed because, when analyzed, i '^ inspiring influence was found to be 
nothing higher than a desire to avenge disappointed ambitions, or to over- 
throw a political organization. No such sordid motive can be charged against 
this gathering. No Democrat here sought honors from those who framed 
the Chicago platform. Every Democrat here has only political humiliation 
to expect in the event of the success of the Chicago ticket. No Democrat 
honored here by being made the candidate of this convention can look 
forward with any reasonable hope to an election. None of us who help 
to nominate him can expect to be participants in any distribution of political 
favors. We are here because we love the Democratic party and because 
wc love our country. That is the inspiration which has drawn us together 
and encourages our action. That is the fact which evidences our sincerity and 
makes our cause strong with the people. Dear to me are the teachings of those 
great Democrats, Jefferson, Jackson and Tilden, who, if alive today, would 
stand with us for party and public honor. And because I love my party and 
my country I am here to do what I can to shield them from dangerous at- 

The Populist convention at Chicago did not realize that the aspersions 
cast by them would, in the future, add luster to the object of their op- 
probrium. Long after the festering sores shall have healed and shall have 
passed into history as an incident as grotesque as Coxey's march to Wash- 
ington, there will stand out with the other foremost leaders of the Democracy 
the name of the man they now vilify— Grover Cleveland. 



Senator Caffery said, among other things: 

Mr, Caficry'i Speech. 

We are the propagandists of no new creed. We are the upholders of 
the old. We appeal from Democracy drunk with delusion to Democracy 
sobered by reason. With an abiding faith in the intelligence and honesty of 
our people we lay belore them and the world the reasons that prompted ui 
to unfurl the old flag that has floated over many a triumph and many a 
defeat, and has never yet been soiled by repudiation nor stained by dishonor. 
We deem it wise to pursue an aggressive rather than a negative policy; to 
be Achilles dragging Hector around the walls of Troy rather than Achillea 
sulking in his tent. We propose to make a funeral pyre of the cadavers of 
populism and anarchy. We proposed to drag behind our triumphant chariot 
wheels, in defeat and disgrace, around the National Capital, the dead Frank- 
easteins, personifying their pernicious creed and their turbulent fanaticism. 

I reproduce the money plank of the platform : 

Platform of Bolting Democrat*. 

The experience of mankind has shown that by reason of their natural quali- 
ties gold is the necessary money of the large affairs of commerce and business, 
while silver is conveniently adapted to minor transactions, and the most beneficial 
use of both together can be insured only by the adoption of the former as a 
standard of monetary measure and the maintenance of silver at a parity with 
gold by its limited coinage under suitable safeguards of law. Thus the largest 
possible enjoyment of both metals is gained with the value universally accepted 
throughout the world, which constitutes the only practical bimetallic currency, 
assuring the most stable standard, and especially the best and safest money 
for all who earn a livelihood by labor or the produce of husbandry. They 
cannot suffer when paid in the best money known to man, but are the pe- 
culiar and most defenseless victims of a debased and fluctuating currency, 
which offers continual profits to the money changer at their cost. 

Realizing these truths, demonstrated by long public inconvenience and loss, 
the Democratic party, in the interest of the masses and of equal justice to 
all, practically established by the legislation of 1834 and 1853, the gold stand- 
ard of monetary measurements, and likewise entirely divorced the govern- 
ment from banking and currency issues. To this long-established Democratic 
policy we adhere and insist upon the maintenance of the gold standard and 
of the parity therewith of every dollar issued fay the government, and are 
Grmly opposed to the free and unlimited coinage of silver and to the com- 
pulsory purchase of silver bullion. 

But we denounce, also, the further maintenance of the present costly 
patchwork system of national paper currency as a constant source of injury and 

We assert the necessity of such intelligent currency reform as will confine 
the government to its legitimate functions, completely separated from the 
banking business, and afford to all sections of our country a uniform, safe 
and elastic bank currency under government supervision, measured in volume 
by the needs of business. 


Senator John M. Palmer, of Illinois, was nominated for the Presi- 
dency, and Gen. Simon B. Buckner, of Kentucky, for the Vice-Presi- 

Both candidates received their notification at Louisville, Ky., on 
the evening of September 12. Ex-Congressman William D. B3mum, 
chairman of the National Committee of the bolting Democrats, read 
messages from the President and Secretary of the Treasury. They 
were as follows: 

Mr. Qevdand's MesBage* 

Buzzard's Bay, Mass., September 10. 
Hon. William D. Bynum: I regret that I cannot accept your invitation 
to attend the notification meeting on Saturday evening. As a Democrat,